sesatetet 
Se 


Grea 
ne a 
hg 
eben 
at Dobie ttet 


reed 


Bin 
iat f Hai ! 
i fe th it sgt 

ft 


; t 
hehe 4 ates 


pees 


“<> 


= 
a,tie 


Be 


as 


Hes 


ar 


Mahtieanatast 
St uk 


th 


Saocnbie 


ars 


cece 


oo 


iit H 
pst iis iM 
the beedes ty it 

nut id H 


tits 


‘! 
it 


eee 


itt uh 
* ce 
i : iN i He 


ite 
Gee 
aE ae 
ieut eet th 
BEN 
15S cate in 


ifs 













| “DEC I3 1899 
y. 
Oe, 


aes € 
been, yes 
Giupica Stuy 


Division, OTA ae 1 ‘566 


section 9B 


“wee ae ow 


Nepean rns ) 


at . 
pe, 


oa 
Sp ane 
Ota" i f 
y how fe 
J 


Li 
{ 
“fF i Ml 
..f . 





Digitized by the Internet Archive — 
In 2022 with funding from 
Princeton Theological Seminary Library 


https://archive.org/details/darwinismlamarckOOhuit 


DARWINISM AND LAMARCKISM 








‘) 4 





O 
ee VICOCEC) 


12 be - 703 


W 








wk 
nS 

) 
\ 
A 
NS 


oduced from a © y tative / 
4 


c é 





Ff be rs oi : 
2d togyafe tec Ay Lanhimne, 
c Z Pee 





DARWINISM 
AND LAMARCKISM 


OLD AND NEW 


FOUR LECTURES 


BY 


FREDERICK WOLLASTON HUTTON 
ERSTE TC 


G. P. PUTNAM’S SONS 

NEW YORK AND LONDON 

The Rnickerbocker Press 
1899 


CoPpyYRIGHT, 1899 
BY 
G. P. PUTNAM’S SONS 


The Knickerbocker Press, Hew Work 


APHORISMS BY GOETHE 
Translated by the Right Hon. T. H. Huxley. 


NATURE! We are surrounded and embraced by her: 
powerless to separate ourselves from her, and powerless 
to penetrate beyond her. 

Without asking or warning, she snatches us up into 
her circling dance, and whirls us on, until we are tired 
and drop from her arms. 

She is ever shaping new forms: what is, has never yet 
been ; what has been, comes not again. Everything is 
new, and yet nought but the old. 

We live in her midst, and know hernot. She is inces- 
santly speaking to us, but betrays not her secret. We 
constantly act upon her, and yet have no power over 
her. 


Quietude is inconceivable to her, and she has laid her 
curse upon rest. 


She wraps man in darkness, and makes him forever 
long for light. She creates him dependent upon the 
earth, dull and heavy; and yet is always shaking him 
until he attempts to soar above it. 


Everyone sees her in his own fashion. She hides 
under a thousand names and phrases, and is always the 
same. She has brought me here, and will also lead me 
away. I trust her. She may scold me, but she will not 
hate her work. 

Nature, vol. i., pp. 9-10. 


Mat 
al AT te) : i 
i y KAS) 


Car anki 
Abe! nS 


rie 


pats 


a | y 





PREFACE 


HE first two of these lectures were given to 
the members of the Philosophical Institute 

of Canterbury, New Zealand, on the 12th Septem- 
ber, 1887, and the 21st September, 1898, respect- 
ively. Of the first a small edition was printed for 
private circulation, and is now republished with 
only a few verbal alterations, as, by the nature of 
the subject, it is not necessary to keep it up-to- 
date. On the contrary, it appears to me to be 
preferable that it should reflect the ideas of natural- 
ists at the time it was written. The second lecture 
is printed for the first time. ‘The third was given 
to the students of Canterbury College, University 
of New Zealand, as the opening address of the 
session on the 20th March, 1882, and was subse- 
quently printed in the Mew Zealand Journal of 
Science, under the title of ‘“‘ Biology in an Arts 
Curriculum.’’ I have omitted the opening and 
closing paragraphs ; but the rest is substantially 
the same as when given. ‘The fourth and con- 


vii 


Vill Preface 


cluding lecture, on ‘‘ The New Lamarckism,’’ was 
written to make my treatment of the subject more 
complete. 

My excuse for adding to the already voluminous 
literature on Darwinism is that the subject is al- 
ways advancing, and that the interest attached to it 
is not confined to naturalists, but enters into every- 
day life. It is, indeed, intimately connected with 
our systems of theology, for it forms one of the 
foundations—perhaps the corner-stone—of Nat- 
ural Religion ; by which I mean the religious ideas 
and beliefs we receive from a study of nature. 

It is therefore important that a knowledge of 
the theory should be widely spread ; and any at- 
tempt to convey that knowledge in simple lan- 
guage can hardly fail to do good, provided it be 
sufficiently clear to be understood at the first read- 
ing, and sufficiently short to discourage skipping. 

This has been my aim; and as all the first 
three lectures were addressed to mixed audiences, 
and were intended to be popular expositions of 
the Darwinian doctrine, they may perhaps find 
favour with those who have no time to study more 
elaborate works. 


CHRISTCHURCH, NEW ZEALAND, 
January, 1899. 


CONTENTS 


INTRODUCTION . . : ° : ° 
Old objections to Darwinism 
Idea of an internal tendency to progression 
Definite and indefinite variation 
The transmission of acquired characters 
Physiological selection 
Social evolution . 
The object of organic evolution . 


DARWINISM : . : : ° . : . 
Ideas before Darwin . : ; : : : 
Darwin’s argument compared with that of 

Lamarck : ; , Wrens ‘ ° 
Scope and results of Darwinism. : 
Limitations of Darwinism . : . ° ° 


Pangenesis . : : - : : : : 
THE NEW DARWINISM... : erento 
The Neo-Darwinians and the Neo-Lamarckians, 
The insufficiency of natural selection } : 
Additions to the older theory . : ‘ : 
Physical isolation : 
Physiological isolation : ; : 


ix 


PAGE 


x Contents 


PAGE 

Natural selection : ; ‘4 : Ponts 7 
Preferential selection . 3 : é sw t20 
Extrinsic selection . ; : : Sy ee 
Summary and resuits . : : : : 30 


DARWINISM IN HUMAN AFFAIRS . . . naa 4 
Physiological evolution . Pa ; laa 


Psychical evolution . ‘ : - : 7 152 
Selection in politics . ; : : é . 156 
The social-organism theory . . : ; LOA 
Is a science of history possible ? A : pe TOO 
THE NEW LAMARCKISM . ; ; : ; nh Se 
Physiogenesis . 4 : : ; : ks 
Experimental evidence. ‘ ‘ 2 . 184 
Observational evidence . : : : aT, 
Kinetogenesis . : : . . : eLOO 
Degenerate organs. : . . . = 207. 
Inheritance of variations . : . : tl 2 
Conclusions and suggestions . . - Siege 


INDEX OF PERSONAL NAMES . ° ° 4 e225 


DARWINISM AND LAMARCKISM 


‘ 


’ Ne \ 





DARWINISM AND LAMARCKISM 


INTRODUCTION 


[* 1887, when the first of these lectures was 

given, Darwinism was a compact body of 
doctrine, obscured only by the writings of certain 
philosophers who imagined that natural selection 
was a cause of variation, in spite of the expressed 
statement to the contrary which Darwin found it 
necessary to make, eight years after the publica- 
tion of the Ovigin of Species. ‘‘ Natural selec- 
tion,’’ he said, ‘* has no relation whatever to the 
primary cause of any modification of structure.”’ ’ 

Darwin certainly investigated the problems of 
inheritance and variation, and added largely to 
our knowledge of the facts which have still to be 
explained. But he always admitted that he had 
failed to penetrate the mystery behind them ; 


1 Animals and Plants under Domestication, 2d ed., 
WOL MWe De cages 


2 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


and as he published his speculations on these 
subjects in a separate book, he cannot be accused 
of trying to incorporate them with his theory of 
development which is contained in the Origzn of 
Species. In this book he has a chapter on the 
laws of variation, in which he says that our ignor- 
ance of them is profound. He makes no attempt 
to explain them ; nor does he propose any hypo- 
thesis of the origin of variations. On»the con- 


‘ 


trary, he says, ‘‘ whatever the cause may be of 
each slight difference in the offspring from their 
parents—and a cause for each must exist—it is 
the steady accumulation, through natural selec- 
tion, of such differences, when beneficial, that 
gives rise to all the more important modifications 
of structure, by which the innumerable beings on 
the face of the earth are enabled to struggle with 
each other, and the best adapted to survive.”’ 
This, which was published in 1859, is strictly 
correct at the present day. 

In 1899 things are different. The confusion 
just alluded to has much increased. Conceptions 
totally irrelevant to Darwinism have been fastened 
on it, and all kinds of misconceptions have grown 
up. Indeed, things have fared so badly since 
Darwin’s death that I have seen it stated that his 
flock has scattered, and that the great theory he 


Introduction 3 


so successfully reared is in danger of falling to 
pieces. 

This, however, is a mistake, founded on an er- 
roneous conception of what Darwin’s work really 
was. Ofcourse, things have changed. New facts 
have been discovered, new reasonings have been 
produced, and we have lost the leader who used to 
sift the facts and reasonings for us. Under these 
circumstances a few scientific agnostics have 
arisen, who declare they doubt everything ; but 
I fancy that most naturalists know their own 
minds, and have their own beliefs. 


OLD OBJECTIONS TO DARWINISM 


In the early days of Darwinism the objection— 
long since abandoned—was often urged against 
natural selection, that it was impossible to sup- 
pose that the few individuals which possessed any 
advantageous structure in the highest degree 
would pair and transmit it to their offspring un- 
diminished by intercrossing. No doubt Darwin 
at first thought that single variations could be 
thus perpetuated by natural selection; but so 
long ago as 1867 he abandoned that view, after 
having read an article by Mr. Fleeming Jenkin, in 
the North British Review, which convinced him 


that free intercrossing must necessarily destroy 


4 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


the effect of any single variation. He says that 
his mistake arose from thinking too much of the 
cases of selection by man.’ He then recognised 
that natural selection acts, not by preserving a 
few highly favoured individuals, but by killing 
off all those which do not come up to a certain 
standard. Its mode of action is not like that of 
leading a horse, but like that of driving a flock 
of sheep. It is not in any way analogous to the 
methodical selection of man, but more nearly 
represents what Darwin called unconscious selec- 
tion. This objection, which was supposed to be 
dead and buried, was resuscitated by the Marquis 
of Salisbury in his Presidential Address to the 
British Association at Oxfordin 1894. Heasked, 
‘‘ What is to secure that the two individuals of 
opposite sexes in the primeval forest, who have 
been both accidentally blessed with the same ad- 
vantageous variation, shall meet and transmit by 
inheritance that variation to their successors? 
Unless this step is made good, the modification 
will never get a start ; and yet there is nothing 
to insure that step but chance.’’ ‘This difficulty, 
however, arose entirely from a mistaken view of 
the real mode of action of natural selection ; and 


1 Origin of Spectes, 5th ed. (1869), p. 104; and Life 
and Letters, ili., pp. 107-108, 


Introduction 5 


so soon as that mistake was seen the difficulty 
vanished. 

Lord Salisbury also brought forward the further 
objection that physicists had shown that the earth 
had not existed long enough to allow of the pro- 
cess of development by the Darwinian theory, as 
that process was necessarily a very slow one. 
This also is a misconception of Darwinism. ‘The 
objection is a mild form of the very venerable one 
which Cuvier brought against the theory of La- 
marck in the beginning of the century, and which 
is mentioned in the first of these lectures. The 
answer is that if organic development has been 
slow during the last three or four thousand years, 
so also has been geological development. As 
the earth has, as a matter of fact, existed long 
enough for the geological evolution to work out, 
so also must it have existed long enough for the 
organic evolution; for all through the earth’s 
history the two have gone together. From the 
Radiolarians and sponges of the MHuronian, 
through the Trilobites and Brachiopods of the 
older Palzeozoic, the fishes and land plants of the 
newer Palzeozoic, the reptiles and Gymnosperms 
of the Mesozoic, the birds, mammals, and angio- 
sperms of the Cainozoic, the geologic and biologic 
evolutions have marched hand in hand ; and as 


6 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


there has been time for one there must have been 
time for the other. The rate of evolution does 
not affect Darwinism, which has nothing to do 
with the origin of varieties. If the varieties came 
quickly, natural selection would act quickly; and 
vice versa. No doubt, if the physicists are right, 
variation must have gone on quicker than it does 
now ; but Professor Poulton has shown that the 
data on which physicists have calculated the short 
history of the earth are untrustworthy, and not 
entitled to so much weight as the facts brought 
forward by geologists.’ 

Of course we do not expect Lord Salisbury to 
be up-to-date in biological theory; but as his ad- 
dress will probably be memorable as the last 
attack on Darwinism from the Presidential Chair 
of a scientific society, and as it contains what he 
evidently thought was a death-blow to the whole 
theory, I feel obliged to mention it here. 

The first thing to do, in order to understand 
Darwinism, either old or new, is to dismiss from 
our minds any idea that it goes to the root of 
things and attempts to explain origins. The 
truth is that the new Darwinism is merely an ex- 
panded form of the old, in which, in addition to 
selection, isolation is shown to be necessary for 

‘ British Association Report for 1896, p. 808. 


Introduction 7 


organic evolution ; and this, in my opinion, is the 
only real advance that has been made since Dar- 
win’s death. The new teaching explains the facts 
much better than the old ; but there still remains 
much to be desired, especially in the collection of 
evidence to test the truth of those parts of the 
theory which relate to physiological isolation. 


IDEA OF AN INTERNAL TENDENCY TO PRO- 
GRESSION 


It will be noticed that in the first lecture it is 
pointed out that natural selection does not afford 
a complete solution of the problem of organic 
evolution ; but the new teaching is not even 
mentioned : for, plain as it now seems, it was not 
very convincing in its early days. On the con- 
trary, it is there stated that ‘‘ many biologists are 
of opinion that there is an inherent tendency to- 
wards higher organisation ; they think that pro- 
toplasm tends to become more and more complex, 
and that evolution is the inevitable outcome of a 
fundamental property of living matter.’’ The 
idea of an internal force, compelling development 
in certain directions, and especially towards 
higher organisation, which was common eleven 
years ago, is still held by some naturalists ; but 
it has almost vanished before the accumulating 


8 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


testimony of palzontology, that several of the 
lower organisms have existed from the earliest 
part of the Palzeozoic era up to the present day, 
without undergoing any important change in 
their hard parts—which alone have been pre- 
served—and therefore probably without much 
change in their soft parts either. Indeed, most 
of the classes of animals and plants have under- 
gone but little change since their first appearance. 
In comparatively few cases has change been 
rapid; but it is these rapidly changing forms 
which seem so remarkable in our eyes, and give 
the impression that great change is more uni- 
versal than it really is. Except the large Lyco- 
pods and Crustaceans of the newer Paleozoic, the 
reptiles and birds of the Mesozoic, and perhaps a 
few of the Kocene hoofed mammals, there is no- 
thing among extinct plants and animals that 
would appeal to the untrained eye as anything 
remarkable and unlike living plants and animals. 
Our views on this subject are much exaggerated, 
owing to the numerous drawings and models that 
have been made of a few of the most extraordinary 
of the animals; and we forget that they were only 
a few among a host of quite ordinary beings. 


Introduction 9 


DEFINITE AND INDEFINITE VARIATION 


In the second lecture I have entered somewhat 
fully into the difference between Lamarckism and 
Darwinism, because I have noticed misconcep- 
tions on the subject among several writers on 
evolution ; and it was necessary to make the 
difference as clear as possible, without going into 
technical details. There seems to be especial 
confusion on the subject of definite or determinate, 
and indefinite or indeterminate variation ; anda 
few more words about it may not be out of place 
in this Introduction ; for, although not included 
in Darwinism, it has an indirect bearing on our 
views of natural selection. 

Some writers seem to think that because de- 
terminate variation implies a directing agency, 
therefore indeterminate variation can have no 
directing agency, and that it has no cause at all. 
This confusion is largely due to the unfortunate 
substitution of the terms ‘‘ determinate’’ and 
‘‘indeterminate’’ for Darwin’s ‘‘ definite’’ and 
‘‘ indefinite ’’ variation, which are far more appro- 
priate. I have also seen it stated that, if varia- 
tions are definite, there is nothing left for natural 
selection to do; which is quite a mistake. A 
definite variation may be injurious, or it may be 


1O Darwinism and Lamarckism 


indifferent, or it may be useful to its possessor. 
The first will be checked, the second will be left 
alone, and the third will be still further developed 
by natural selection. The mistake has arisen 
through supposing that all definite variations 
must be useful, which would no doubt be the case 
if all definite variations were due to use-inherit- 
ance ; but we have no reason to suppose that this 
is so. ‘This is clearly seen when we consider 
‘mental variations, many of which are definite, 
that is, are impressed simultaneously on a large 
number of individuals, but are subject to the laws 
of selection, as is pointed out in the third lecture. 

‘““ Definite variation ’’ only means that a varia- 
tion, gradually increasing in intensity, is trans- 
mitted by a number of individuals from one 
generation tothe next. While ‘‘ indefinite varia- 
tion’’ means that each variation is individual 
only, and may or may not die out with the indi- 
vidual. Individual variations are often trans- 
mitted from one generation to another ; and the 
oftener they are transmitted, the more constant 
they become; until, at last, a large number of 
individuals constantly acquire the same character. 
Here we have cases of indefinite changing into 
definite variation, showing that the two are funda- 
mentally the same ; the difference between them 


Introduction HI 


lying in the strength and constancy of the direct- 
ing cause. 

Variations must be due either, (1) to the action 
of the environment directly on the individuals, 
or indirectly, by causing a change of habit, and 
thus leading to the greater or less use of certain 
organs. Or, (2) to internal causes affecting the 
action of some law of growth which counteracts 
the law of heredity. Each of these causes may 
possibly give rise to indefinite or to definite varia- 
tion, according to the strength with which it 
acts. We have no reason to suppose that exter- 
nal causes must act identically on different in- 
dividuals, or that because one individual changes 
its habits therefore many must do the same; 
but no doubt the environment, if it acts at all, 
would generally affect a large number of indi- 
viduals simultaneously, and post-natal variations 
would generally be definite. On the other hand, 
indefinite variations would generally arise during 
the development of the individual ; and conse- 
quently they must generally be congenital in 
origin, although the effects may not show until 
long after birth. Definite variation is due to the 
directive force being sufficiently strong to over- 
come all obstacles. The greatest obstacle is free 
intercrossing with individuals which do not pos- 


12 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


sess the variation. ‘This is overcome either by 
the isolation of a few individuals, or by a large 
number of individuals changing together in the 
same direction, and so forming a group by them- 
selves. This last is the necessary foundation of 
Lamarckism ; and the term “‘ determinate varia- 
> might be restricted to it, provided it was 
well understood that determinate variation was 
only a special form of definite variation. The first 
is the foundation of the new Darwinism ; but that 
theory does not exclude definite variation, or even 
that particular form of it which we have just 
called determinate variation, if it should hereafter 
be shown that such variations can be transmitted 
from one generation to another. Indeed, it is 
well known that Mr. Darwin allowed far more 
influence to use-inheritance than the new Dar- 
winians are inclined to do. 


tion 


THE TRANSMISSION OF ACQUIRED CHARACTERS 


That post-natally acquired mental characters or 
variations can be transmitted, we know from 
many undoubted cases of inherited habits ; but it 
does not necessarily follow that post-natally ac- 
quired structural characters can be transmitted. 
For mental variations are transmitted in two 
ways: first by imitation or education, and sec- 


Introduction 13 


ondly by inheritance. It is probable that the 
second form can only occur after the variation has 
been transmitted by imitation through several 
generations, during which it passes from the in- 
definite to the definite stage. This cannot take 
place with structural variations; and a post- 
natally acquired character has but a small chance 
of becoming a congenital character, unless it is re- 
produced generation after generation by the action 
of climate or other external agent. It might then 
perhaps in time become definite and congenital, 
provided there is some process by which structural 
variations affect the germ-cells in a manner simi- 
lar to the action of mental variations on the 
brain-cells, which—although we cannot explain 
it—we know to be a fact by the phenomenon of 
memory. And, as something very similar to 
memory appears to be the cause of structural de- 
velopment, this may be the case; the evidence 
bearing on the subject, however, is weak and 
contradictory. Mr. Darwin offered an explana- 
tion in his hypothesis of Pangenesis; but, for 
reasons given in the first lecture, that hypothesis 
cannot be maintained, at any rate in its integrity. 

It is thought by some that ‘‘ if natural selection 
be inadequate to explain many of the facts of evo- 
lution, there is no alternative but the view that 


14 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


development is partly caused by the transmission 
of changes brought about in the organism as a re- 
sult of its own activity, directed and conditioned 
by the environment, and of the action of external 


xy 1 


agencies. Which, I suppose, means that there 
is no alternative but a partial return to Lamarck- 
ism. It will, however, be seen in the second 
lecture that there is no necessity for thinking 
that acquired characters must be inherited in 
order to supplement the action of natural selec- 
tion. ‘The isolation of variations, no matter how 
they have arisen, is sufficient to explain all the 
deficiencies without any help from Lamarckism. 
Indeed, it is not clear how Lamarckism bears on 
the case at all; for that is an hypothesis to ex- 
plain the origin of adaptations only ; and _ fails, 
equally with natural selection, to explain non- 
utilitarian characters, including the mutual steril- 
ity between species. ‘There may be special cases, 
in which the direct action of external agencies 
has been the prominent factor in the formation of 
a new species ; but certainly the failure of natural 
selection to explain all the phenomena of evolu- 
tion does not oblige us to believe in Lamarckism, 
either wholly or in part. 


1 Parker and Haswell, Zext-Book of Zodlogy, vol. ii., 
p- 627. 


Introduction 15 


PHYSIOLOGICAL SELECTION 


¢ 


I have not used Dr. Romanes’s term “‘ physio- 
logical selection,’’ because, except in the Bacteria, 
species are not founded on physiological charac- 
ters ; and, therefore, no amount of physiological 
selection could give rise to a new species ; it can 
at most only produce isolation of some individuals 
from others. ‘The best case of physiological selec- 
tion is what the Rev. G. Henslow has called 


”» 


‘“ Constitutional Selection,’’ which is a struggle 
for existence in which the sick and weakly give 
way to the healthy and strong. His illustrations 
are taken from thickly growing seedlings of the 
same species of plant ; and it is evident that this 
would not differentiate two morphological varie- 
ties ; Dr. Romanes himself did not suppose that 
his physiological selection could directly originate 
species. He always described it as a form of iso- 
lation ; as also does Professor Lloyd Morgan in 
his Animal Life and Intelligence. Under these 
circumstances I think it will avoid ambiguity 
if the ** physiological selection ’’’ of Dr. Romanes 
is included asa form of physiological isolation ; 
and I have called it ‘‘ progressive infertility.’’ 


SOCIAL EVOLUTION 


The principle of Selection was divided by Mr. 


16 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


Darwin into natural selection and selection by 
man ; and this latter he subdivided into methodi- 
cal and unconscious or unmethodical, selection. 
Methodical selection is when the breeder or fancier 
selects with care the best individuals with the in- 
tention of improving an old breed or of forming a 
new one. Unmethodical selection is that used 
by the ordinary farmer, who, without any definite 
attempt to form or to improve a breed, culls out 
the worst animals from his flock and preserves 
the best. The action of natural selection in 
human society has been ably investigated by Dr. 
Wallace, Mr. Greg, Mr. Galton, Mr. Herbert 
Spencer, Mr. Bagehot, Mr. Kidd, and others ; 
and a summary of the older views will be found 
in Darwin’s Descent of Man, together with many 
selections of his own ; but, strangely enough, the 
action of the kindred principle of selection by 
man—or artificial selection, as Sir C. Lyell called 
it—has either been overlooked, or else has been 
mixed up with that of natural selection, although, 
in reality, the two are quite distinct. Natural 
selection is brought about by competition be- 
tween the individuals themselves, by the co-oper- 
ation, as it were, of the individuals selected ; and 
both it and preferential selection are forms of 
Intrinsic Selection. Artificial selection, on the 


Introduction 7, 


contrary, is the action of an individual, or a 
group of individuals, altogether outside the indi- 
viduals selected from; and it may therefore be 
called Extrinsic Selection. In civilised society we 
see the action of intrinsic selection in the vari- 
ous effects produced by the desire for accumu- 
lating wealth ; while the elimination of criminals 
from society by means of imprisonment is an 
example of the working of extrinsic selection. 
Extrinsic selection plays a very important part 
in social evolution, much more so than in 
biology. 

An animal obtains its food, defends itself from 
enemies, and is protected from the weather, by 
its bodily structure ; and, if the surrounding con- 
ditions change, a change in bodily structure be- 
comes necessary to adapt the animal to the new 
conditions. But man obtains his food and de- 
fends himself by tools and weapons ; he protects 
himself from climate by houses, clothing, and 
fire; and we cannot conceive any change of 
conditions that could not be met more readily 
by new inventions than by change of bodily 
form. As Dr. Wallace says, ‘‘ Man’s intellect 
has emancipated his body from the action of the 
law of natural selection ;’’ he adapts himself 
mentally, not corporeally, to new conditions ; 


18 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


and this must always have been the case, ever 
since his mental faculties became predominant. 

But although the general form of the body of 
man is, and has been for a long time, almost 
stationary—because unacted upon by selection— 
this is not the case with his mind ; the principle 
of selection has not disappeared, it has only 
changed its venue. Skill and ability take the 
place of bodily structure ; and in the struggle for 
existence between man and man these constantly 
tend to improve ; and wealth, which is the chief 
test of a successful struggle, again assists its pos- 
sessors by enabling them to give a superior edu- 
cation to their children. 

In animals variations are chiefly in structure, 
and cannot alter much during life ; consequently 
they are small and accumulate slowly. But in 
man the variations are mental ; they can occur at 
any period of life; they may be great and sudden, 
and can be transmitted to large numbers at the 
same time; and it is this which is the cause of 
the greater mobility of human affairs. Also, just 
as abundance of bodily food is the chief cause of 
structural variation, so also is the abundance of 
mental food the chief cause of mental variation. 
As G. H. Lewes says, ‘‘ Experience is to the 
mental organism what nutrition is to the bodily 


Introduction 19 


organism.’’ Consequently the promulgation of 
ideas must be a great cause of mental variability. 

In human affairs selection acts not only through 
the principle of utility but also through that of 
sympathy; these two, acting sometimes in opposi- 
tion, sometimes in conjunction, make the opera- 
tion of selection far more complicated than in 
biology, where sympathy is practically absent. 

It has been sometimes supposed that sympathy 
is opposed to selection ; but this error could only 
have arisen by confusing selection with its agent, 
utility. Selection acts solely for the benefit of the 
selecting power; and when the results of sym- 
pathy are advantageous they will be preserved 
by selection. Man is not like the lower animals ; 
and an advance in morals through the action of 
sympathy may be more advantageous than an 
advance in wealth or strength through the action 
of utility. 

In man the principle of selection has been 
transferred from the body to the mind, to the 
realm of opinions. ‘These opinions arise—psy- 
chologists tell us—from ideas or desires, and these 
ideas from sensations or intuitions ; but ow ideas 
originate we are profoundly ignorant. We are 
just as profoundly ignorant of the cause or causes 
of variation in bodily structure ; yet the principle 


20 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


of selection, which acts upon these structural 
variations when formed, is known, and explains 
toa very large extent how it is that plants and 
animals are so diversified. In the same way the 
principle of selection acts upon the opinions and 
actions of men, and it is capable of explaining 
most of the facts of sociology. The origin of 
opinions, whether by free will or necessity, has 
nothing to do with the working of the principle ; 
the supposed best opinons are selected, no matter 
how they arose, and these opinions govern society 
for the time. This is the solution of the old para- 
dox, that either free will must be a delusion, or 
else historical science is impossible; both can 
exist together, because the law of history is not 
concerned with the origin of ideas. We do not 
know how an eye originated ; but, being there, 
we know its functions, and how it will be acted 
upon by selection; and similarly, we may not 
know how an opinion arose; but, once having 
arisen, we can estimate its probable action and 
trace out its development by selection ; and con- 
sequently we can frame a science of history. 

The process of selection in human affairs is 
sometimes natural selection, but more often it is 
preferential selection ; for it is generally due to 
choice, voluntarily exercised, and is not an in- 


Introduction 21 


evitable necessity, nor is it always accompanied 
by the destruction of the rejected. 

Isolation, although not absolutely necessary for 
the preservation of mental variations, is very in- 
fluential in securing divergence ; and it has been 
the chief cause of variety in customs, dress, lan- 
guage, etc. The isolation is due either to migra- 
tion or to social segregation into classes ; but the 
barriers are rapidly crumbling, and nations are 
getting more and more uniform. 

The truth contained in the great-man theory 
of Cousin and Carlyle lies in the fact that great 
men have great powers of causing variations in 
the opinions of others, of making large numbers 
tend to vary in the same direction. Physical 
agencies, on which both Montesquieu and Buckle 
laid so much stress can only act indirectly in the 
formation of ideas through sensations. Climate 
may act directly on the nervous system; or a 
combination of meteorological and geological 
agencies may determine whether any particular 
community shall be agricultural, pastoral, min- 
ing, manufacturing, or commercial; and these act 
on the formation of opinions, which then come 
under the principle of selection. Comte’s law of 
the three states, so far as it is true, is to sociology 
what Von Baer’s law—that development is from 


22 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


the general to the special—is to biology; the 
cause of both is selection. 

In his very interesting book on Social Evolution 
Mr. Benjamin Kidd points out the antagonism 
existing in human society between the interests 
of the individual, necessarily concerned with his 
own welfare, and the interest of the community, 
which is largely bound up with the welfare of 
posterity. He says that in a Democracy there 
can be no rational sanction for progress, because 
the interest of the masses is to abolish competi- 
tion and to organise, on socialistic principles, the 
means of production and the regulation of the 
population, so that there may be comfortable ex- 
istence for all. This, he thinks, is corrected by 
religious beliefs, which, he says, are ultra-rational, 
and which inculcate the sacrifice of the individual 
in the interests of generations yet unborn. 

Experience, however, hardly bears out Mr. 
Kidd’s conclusions. The pure democracies be- 
longing to the Western civilisation are not so 
socialistic as those countries in which the masses 
have not yet got full power ; and there is no evid- 
ence to show that this is due to the greater de- 
velopment of religious beliefs. The real reason 
lies in the inherent antagonism between the differ- 
ent groups, which must exist in every civilised 


Introduction 22 


community. Socialism among savages is possible, 
because all have the same interests, all follow the 
same avocations, and there is no money. But 
with division of labour different interests arise ; 
and as every civilised community must consist 
of many groups there must be many conflicting 
interests, which neutralise each other and ensure 
the continuance of competition. It is this that 
secures the material progress of the community 
as a whole, whether it be a democracy or a 
despotism, and not the development of religious 
beliefs. The desire for liberty will always pre- 
vent a civilised democracy from going back to 
socialism. 


THE OBJECT OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION 


The ultimate aim of the study of nature is to 
try to discover how the various objects we see 
come into being, and why they are here. It may 
not be possible ever to attain this aim ; but we 
can advance towards it ; and in doing so we learn 
much about the relation of the universe to its 
Creator. 

For a long time the outlook was hazy, and it 
was not until the publication of Mr. Darwin’s 
Origin of Species that a clear view was obtained. 
It was then seen that all animals and plants were 


24 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


genetically related to each other, and that the 
physical evolution of the solar system had been 
followed by a physiological evolution. When 
this truth had been firmly established, the infer- 
ence necessarily followed that the object of physi- 
ological evolution was the development of man. 
The reason for the inference was, not that man is 
the highest product of evolution, for other animals 
have in their turn been in that position ; but that 
the advent of man had made a complete change in 
the course of evolution, and had added a new 
form—psychical evolution—to the older forms. 
The changes brought about were as follows :— . 
First, the process of natural selection is over, 
so far as man’s bodily structure is concerned. No 
important change has taken place in his body 
since the commencement of the Pleistocene period ; 
and none can take place in the future, because his 
hand is quite capable of carrying out the ideas 
evolved in his brain ; and it is by these that he 
lives and competes with his neighbours. 
Secondly, the diversity of animal and plant life 
on the earth seems to have reached its maximum. 
Man is the destructive force in nature, and already 
he has exterminated several of the larger animals. 
As time goes on we may expect that all animals 
and plants that are hurtful to him will be de- 


Introduction 25 


stroyed, and that the whole earth will become a 
garden, the sea alone being able to resist his en- 
croachments. 

Thirdly, there are a number of elementary 
substances in the world which appear to be of no 
use except to man: for example, gold, silver, 
lead, zinc, etc. ‘These must have been intended 
for his use, for they were useless in the economy 
of nature until a sufficient amount of intelligence 
had been reached. Not only were these made for 
man, but they appear to have been made as re- 
wards for the exercise of his intellect. There are 
other substances, such as the rarer elements, of 
which no use seems ever likely to be made, except 
the important one of stimulating inquiry. 

As we must suppose that there is no effect with- 
out a cause, and that everything has a meaning 
or an object, we arrive at the conclusion that the 
object of physiological evolution on the earth was 
the development of the human mind, to which the 
development of his body was only a preliminary. 
But the intellect of man, however noble, is not 
the highest part of him. ‘This is only an exalta- 
tion of character which he shares with the brute 
creation. It is in his moral and religious nature 
that we see the true human characteristics which 
separate him completely from all other animals. 


26 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


On the psychical evolution of man I need not 
enlarge. It is partly utilitarian, partly ethical, 
partly religious. Ethical evolution is founded on 
animal instincts, such as the love of offspring ; 
and, although to some extent the product of intel- 
lect, it is chiefly due to sympathy as opposed to 
selfishness, and to conscious efforts at self-im- 
provement—to what is called the prompting of 
the conscience. For even in the higher phases 
of ethical and religious development progress is 
secured by the same process of conflict by which 
it is secured in physiological evolution. Both 
material and intellectual progress are due to con- 
flict between one individual and others; while 
moral and religious progress is secured by the 
conflict of each man with himself. This was not 
possible until man had obtained the power of free 
choice ; and this, therefore, was the true begin- 
ning of ethical evolution. Ethical character is 
acquired after birth, and is not transmitted phys- 
iologically from parent to offspring. Hach hu- 
man being has to work out his own development ; 
but he is helped in this by the thoughts of former 
generations. With the moral comes also the re- 
ligious development. Beginning at first with 
very low and perhaps unworthy motives of self- 
advancement, it has gradually led up to an en- 


Introduction a7 


deavour to understand and to do the Will of 
God. 

There must be some reason for all this. We 
cannot believe that the universe has been called 
into existence merely for the amusement of its 
Creator ; for then we should be obliged to assume 
that He took pleasure in seeing pain inflicted on 
His creatures. But if the object is the moral de- 
velopment of man, that difficulty vanishes ; for 
it is the sight of pain and suffering which arouses 
sympathy, and forms one of the strongest motive 
powers in ethical progress. It would be impossi- 
ble to cultivate virtue in a man who did not know 
what evil was; for virtue consists in resisting 
temptation ; and the existence of evil is necessary 
for the psychical evolution which has been going 
on ever since the advent of man. 

But the goal of psychical evolution does not 
seem to lie'in this world ; and as we cannot be- 
lieve the process to be altogether useless it follows 
that there must be something outside this world 
which is beyond the power of our intellect to 
fathom, but which seems to be necessarily con- 
nected with a future existence. And if this is 
the case we have in the development of human 
souls the ultimate object of the universe, so far as 
we mortals can ever ascertain it. 


28 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


The two highest truths we know—the existence 
of one God, and that death is but a step from one 
kind of life to another—were arrived at by the 
use of our emotional and moral faculties, with but 
little help from reason, long before the introduc- 
tion of the scientific method. But we can now 
show reasons for believing in them, which will 
carry more conviction to the educated mind than 
did the old intuitions and instincts ; and will, in 
time, bring the whole human race to one belief. 
This will be the outcome of the theory of evolu- 
tion, a theory which, a few years ago, many 
people thought to be atheistical. 


DPECTIURE 1 
DARWINISM 


HE subject on which I have undertaken to 
lecture has of late years been presented 
under so many forms in magazines and in books 
that it is difficult to find anything that will be 
fresh to you. Some of these books view it from 
the standpoint of philosophy, others from that of 
biology, others again from that of ethics. Cer- 
tainly the artistic point of view is still vacant; we 
have no poem describing Darwinism ; and I have 
seen no pictures of our hairy ancestors with 
pointed ears. I shall not, however, attempt to 
occupy that position to-night, but shall content 
myself with taking up much more humble ground. 
After some preliminary remarks on the ideas 
formerly associated by naturalists with the terms » 
‘“Species’’ and ‘‘ Genus’’—a correct notion of 
which is absolutely necessary for understanding 
what follows—I shall compare the argument of 
29 


30 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


Lamarck for the development of species with that 
of Darwin, and I shall then try to explain what 
Darwinism is and what it is not ; what it has done 
and what it cannot do; and this will give me an 
opportunity of expounding Darwin’s views on in- 
heritance and variation. As to the philosophical 
aspects of Darwinism, I must pass them over with 
scarcely a word, as I am not competent to give an 
original opinion on that side of the question. I 
think I shall do more good by exposing the firm 
foundation on which Darwinism stands. All of 
you, I hope, know a good deal about Darwinism ; 
for without that previous knowledge I very much 
doubt my ability to make so complicated a sub- 
ject plain. All I expect to do is to help to clear 
up any haziness that may exist in your minds as 
to the limits of Darwinism ; and to do even this I 
trust more to your intelligence than to my power 
of popular exposition. 


IDEAS BEFORE DARWIN 


Passing over the views of the ancient philoso- 
phers, which, although often ingenious, were not 
founded on careful observation, and consequently 
never prepared the way for further advance in 
knowledge, we find in the seventeenth century a 
general opinion prevailing that each kind of ani- 


Darwinism at 


mal and plant had been separately created at the 
beginning of the world, and had since then in- 
creased and multiplied and covered the face of the 
earth. This popular belief is embodied by Milton 
in the seventh book of Paradise Lost, in which 
Raphael, ‘‘the affable archangel,’’ tells Adam 
how and why the world was made. At this time 
the word ‘‘ species,’’ although used by the an- 
cients, had no particular meaning attached to it ; 
but in the eighteenth century Linnzeus gave pre- 
cision to biological nomenclature, and defined a 
species as a group of animals or plants that had 
descended from common ancestors. ‘‘Wereckon,’’ 
he says, ‘‘ just so many species as there were forms 
created in the beginning ’’ ; and this definition 
was almost universally accepted by naturalists. 
It was, of course, allowed that no direct proof of 
the proposition could be obtained, but it was 
assumed that perfect fertility among the individ- 
uals, and such a close resemblance as might exist 
between parent and offspring, were sufficient to 
prove community of descent ; while dissimilarity 
in appearance, and infertility, partial or complete, 
were supposed to prove that the individuals had 
descended from separate stocks, and, consequently, 
belonged to different species. It was known that 
in some cases very dissimilar individuals had to 


32 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


be included in the same species, because a series 
of links existed graduating one form into the 
other ; and there were other cases in which dis- 
similar individuals were retained in the same 
species, because a series of links, although not 
known, was supposed to exist somewhere, or to 
have existed previously. ‘The real test—fertility 
between the individuals—could rarely be applied ; 
so that cases arose, and kept constantly augment- 
ing in number, in which it was a mere matter of 
opinion whether two different individuals be- 
longed to the same or to different species. It 
was, however, allowed that, if the test of fertility 
could be applied, it would be decisive; for it 
was not doubted that sterility between different 
species was a provision intended from the begin- 
ning to prevent confusion between all kinds of 
plants and animals. It is now known that the 
assumption of sterility between individuals of 
different species was based on a very limited 
number of facts, and that it will not hold good in 
all cases. 

The great difficulty of distinguishing between 
species and mere varieties of a species led a few 
naturalists—among them was Erasmus Darwin, 
grandfather of Charles Darwin—to doubt the doc- 
trine of 7xzty of species ; but it was not until La- 


Darwinism 23 


marck published his Phzlosophie Zodlogique, at the 
commencement of the present century, that any 
definite idea was obtained of the rival theory of 
transmutation or development of species, since 
called Organic Evolution. Before going any 
farther it is necessary to explain how it was that 
the question became one about the origin of 
species, and not of any of the larger groups. 
You are no doubt aware that, in the classification 
of plants and animals, two or more species are 
united into a genus, and that genera are again 
grouped into families or orders. Now the group 
‘“ species ’’’ was supposed to have a precise bound- 
ary, all the individuals contained in it being, as 
I have already said, fertile among themselves, 
but infertile with any individuals outside. Dr. 
Fleming, in his Philosophy of Zoology, published 
in 1822, says: ‘‘ The term ‘ species’ is universally 
employed to characterise a group consisting of 
individuals possessing the greatest number of 
common properties, and producing without con- 
straint a fertile progeny.’’ But no such definite 
boundary could be traced for the larger groups, 
such as genera, etc. It was generally agreed 
that, while species were natural groups—. e., real 
groups existing in nature—genera, families, and 


orders were artificial inventions of naturalists, 
os 


34 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


designed to facilitate classification ; the number 
of species to be included in a genus being, toa 
large extent, a matter of convenience only. Mr. 
T. Vernon Wollaston, in a book Ox the Variation 
of Species, published in 1855, has a chapter on 
‘“the generic theory,’’ in which he says ‘‘ the 
terms genus and species have been conjointly so 
long associated in our minds with the selfsame 
things, that they have become almost part and par- 
cel of the objects themselves ; so that the student 
who does not sufficiently reflect on their true sig- 
nification is apt to regard them as of equal im- 
portance, or, more often perhaps than otherwise, 
to make the latter subservient to the former. 
This, however, is in reality the very reverse of 
what should be the case, as a moment’s consider- 
ation will indeed at once convince us: for what 
are genera after all but dilatations, as it were, 
along a chain which is composed of separate, 
though differently shaped links? ‘The links, or 
the actual independent bodies which constitute 
the chain, are the species; but the knobs or 
swellings are the groups into which those species 
naturally fall. It will consequently be seen from 
what has been said that the terms genus and 
species not only differ very considerably in im- 
portance, but in signification also. Whilst the 


Darwinism 35 


former is merely suggestive of a particular posi- 
tion which a creature occupies in a systematic 
scale, the latter expresses the actual creature 
itself. So that while one applies to several ani- 
mals of distinct natures and origins, though bound 
together by a certain bond of imitation, the other 
belongs to a single race alone, which it therefore 
exclusively indicates.’’ Again, the well-known 
naturalist, Mr. S. P. Woodward, writing in 1856, 
says: ‘‘ all the specimens or individuals which are 
so much alike that we may reasonably believe 
them to have descended from a common stock, 
constitute a species. It is a particular provision 
for preventing the blending of species that hybrids 
are always barren. . . . Genera are groups 
of species related by community of structure in all 
essential respects. . . . Families are groups 
of genera which agree in some more general char- 
acters than those which unite species into genera.”’ 
I wish you to notice that while genera and families 
are defined as related by community of structure 
only, species are defined as related by community 
of descent. This opinion was generally held by 
naturalists before the publication of Darwin’s 
Origin of Species. 

This long and rather dry digression has been 
necessary in order that you may clearly see that 


36 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


the group ‘‘ species’’ was not merely an outpost 
in the theory of special: creation, which the de- 
fenders might abandon without any serious con- 
sequences, and fall back on the larger groups, but 
was the very citadel itself—the keep of the castle 
—which, if taken, necessitated complete submis- 
sion. ‘This was well understood by naturalists ; 
and it explains the rapidity of the campaign which 
I am about to describe. But many people, not 
being naturalists, have said: ‘‘We grant that 
different species of the same genus have descended 
from common ancestors, but it does not follow 
that this holds good for different genera.’’ ‘That 
is, they would allow that the lion, tiger, leopard, 
and all the cat genus, have had a common origin, 
but they deny that cats and dogs are in any way 
related. This error arose from not knowing what 
naturalists meant by ‘‘ species,’’ and not under- 
standing that, if the reasons which had led 
naturalists to assume that each species had a dis- 
tinct origin were abandoned, there was no other 
halting-place left, and that it was useless to take 
up other ground ; because the same arguments 
which proved that the species of a genus were 
genetically related told with still greater force 
when applied to any of the larger groups, except 
perhaps the very largest of all—the kingdoms and 


Darwinism oy 


sub-kingdoms. The meaning of the word 
‘“genus’’ in Greek—a race or nation with com- 
mon descent—no doubt also contributed to this 
confusion of ideas ; but the word ‘‘ genus’’ never 
had among naturalists the same signification that 
it has in Greek. 

To return now to our history. ‘The Chevalier 
de Lamarck was a very celebrated naturalist, and 
Professor of Zoology in the Jardin du Rot at Paris. 
The first sketch of his theory is said to have been 
published in 1801; but the book in which it is de- 
veloped bears the date of 1809; and of this I wish 
to give you a very short summary: taken, how- 
ever, at second hand, as no copy is known to me 
in Christchurch. He commences by showing that 
species are not- definitely separated by special 
characters, but run one into the other. Genera, 
orders, and even classes do the same ; but these 
are avowedly artificial groups. Exceptions to 
this rule occasionally occur ; but this is probably 
due to the connecting links not having been dis- 
covered. If we havea few individuals only before 
us, it is easy to establish differences ; but as our 
knowledge increases, the difficulties of discrimin- 
ating between species increase also. Varieties 
of a species show exactly the same thing. Now 
these varieties, he says, are acknowledged to be 


38 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


due to climate, habits, manner of living, etc. 
The descendants of the original species, having 
changed their situation, have, in consequence, 
become varieties. Why, he asks, should not 
these varieties go on changing until they be- 
come new species? He then refers to the great 
changes that have taken place in our cultivated 
plants and domesticated animals ; and points out 
how impossible it is to say now from what species 
some of them have been derived. We cannot find 
in nature our cabbages and lettuces: the domestic 
duck has even lost its power of flight. Changes 
in nature, he points out, take place slowly ; yet 
we know that in physical geography such changes 
have taken place ; and these alterations in physi- 
cal geography must have affected the climate and 
the local surroundings of the plants and animals. 
‘Their habits must, therefore, have changed ; and 
this would require that organs which were for- 
merly not much used should be more used, and 
consequently they would develop more. Other 
organs would be less used, and would be impover- 
ished and ultimately would become rudimentary, 
or even be lost altogether. Consequently it is 
the habit that has shaped the organism. A duck 
was not made web-footed to enable it to swim, but 
it became web-footed because new wants attracted 


Darwinism 39 


it to the water ; by repeated stretching of the toes 
the skin acquired a habit of extension, and in 
time became a broad membrane. Among plants, 
changes in nutrition, light, moisture, etc., caused 
an analogous use or disuse of their parts. In 
addition to use and disuse of organs, Lamarck 
accounted for variations by an inherited tendency 
to vary; he talked of ‘‘ the efforts of internal 
sentiment,’’ of ‘‘ the influence of subtle fluids,”’ 


? 


and of “‘ acts of organisation,’’ which caused a 
tendency to progressive advancement ; and this, 
combined with the force of external circumstances, 
was, he thought, sufficient to explain the trans- 
mutation of one species into another. 

Lamarck’s theory was altogether opposed to the 
teaching of the older naturalists ; and, although 
supported by a few, was violently attacked by 
Cuvier and his school. Although founded on a 
true induction, it gave no rational explanation 
of the change of one species into another, and 
showed no efficient cause for gradual divergence 
of characters. The adaptive principle, although 
true, was made to do more work than it could 
bear, and the mixture of metaphysics discredited 
the whole. It so happened that, just before his 
book was published, the naturalists attached to 
Napoleon’s army of Hgypt had sent to Paris a 


40 Darwinism. and Lamarckism 


number of mummies, including monkeys, dogs, 
cats, ibises, birds of prey, and crocodiles. ‘These 
were certainly two or three thousand years old ; 
and no difference could be detected between them 
and the same species now living in Egypt ; while 
the present fauna and flora of the earth was sup- 
posed to date back not more than six thousand 
years. If during the last two thousand years no 
change had been brought about, how, it was tri- 
umphantly asked, could such immense changes 
have taken place in six thousand years? La- 
marck explained that the climate of Egypt had 
probably remained the same for more than two 
thousand years; and he protested against the 
supposed universal catastrophe by which all life 
had been destroyed six thousand years ago. But 
his explanation was in vain, for it was in advance 
of the age. 

The idea that the present surface of the earth, 
with its fauna and flora, was not very ancient, 
was founded partly on Biblical chronology, and 
partly on geological reasoning. It was said by 
geologists that if the earth had been old, all lake 
basins would have been filled up ; that sand-dunes 
would have covered much more country; that the 
deltas of the Nile, the Po, and the Rhine would 
have been much larger; that the Red Sea would 


Darwinism AI 


have been filled up by coral ; while on the other 
hand Biblical chronologists had made different 
estimates of the age of the earth, varying from 
3483 to 6984 years. ‘This seemed to strengthen 
the opinion of James Ussher, Archbishop of Ar- 
magh, who in the first half of the seventeenth 
century had arrived, on astronomical grounds, at 
the conclusion that the world had been created at 
six o’clock on the morning of. the 11th of Feb- 
ruary, 4003 B.C. ; which date Dr. Lloyd, Bishop 
of Worcester, had added as a marginal note toa 
folio edition of the Bible published in 1701. The 
coincidence of these three lines of argument 
naturally seemed conclusive ; but it may be as 
well to mention that Archbishop Ussher’s idea 
was founded upon calculations, made by astro- 
nomers, that at the time mentioned the line of 
equinoxes coincided with the major axis of the 
earth’s orbit, and consequently at that time 
winter and summer were of equal duration all 
over the world. This, he thought, must neces- 
sarily have been the case at the creation of the 
earth. 

The next vigorous onslaught on the doctrine 
of the fixity of species was made in 1844 by the 
Vestiges of Creation, the author of which book 
was Mr. Robert Chambers. It was written in a 


42 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


pleasant style, and gave a popular account of the 
evidence in favour of the development of species ; 
but, although disavowing Lamarck as having 
“scarcely a single adherent,’’ did not advance a 
step beyond him. ‘The book also contained many 
mistakes, especially as to the spontaneous genera- 
tion of living organisms—even insects—by means 
of voltaic electricity; and the evident carelessness 
of the recorded experiments deprived the book of 
all scientific value. It was widely read, but had 
no influence on naturalists. That Lamarck had 
‘““ scarcely a single adherent’’ was, however, not 
quite correct ; for ever since he wrote there have 
always been some naturalists who believed in the 
theory of development of species; and as the 
facts of biology, and especially those of palzeon- 
tology, increased, the disciples of this doctrine 
grew more and more numerous; but none could 
explain it. | 

While scientific men were thus groping in the 
dark after an indistinctly seen truth, the Ovigin 
of Species appeared, which not only gave a better 
account of the evidence for the development of 
species than had ever been given before, but 
showed the fallacy of the adverse argument from 
hybridism, and, above all, gave a lucid explana- 
tion of how progress had been brought about by 


Darwinism 43 


means of natural selection. It was met by a storm 
of abuse and opprobrium such as we now can 
hardly realise, and which it would be unwise to 
recall. Nevertheless, the effect of the book was 
magical. In ten years almost all naturalists were 
converted ; in twenty years the doctrine had 
spread far beyond natural science into the domin- 
ions of ethics and psychology ; and a little more 
than twenty-two years after the publication of his 
book Darwin was buried in Westminster Abbey, 
near the tomb of Sir Isaac Newton, literary men 
and theologians uniting with philosophers and 
naturalists to do honour to the memory of one of 
the greatest observers and thinkers that the world 
has ever seen. 

So rapid has been the victory that I myself 
have seen the whole of the fight ; and I trust, 
therefore, that a personal reminiscence will not 
be deemed egotistical. 

I was brought up in the old orthodox creed of 
special creation. I can weil remember the time 
when naturalists discussed seriously such ques- 
tions as: “‘ Why the creative power had been more 
active in Madagascar and in Madeira than in Asia 
and Europe ?’’ ‘‘ Why ducks had been created 
with hind toes which they could not use?”’ 
*‘ Why whales had five fingers inside their flip- 


44 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


pers ?’’ and many other curious problems. The 
scales have long since fallen from our eyes ; and 
for this we thank Charles Darwin. When the 
Origin of Species first came out, I read it with 
avidity. I could detect no flaw in the argument ; 
but thought that this must be owing to my ignor- 
ance. Soon afterwards I happened to make a 
geological excursion to the Isle of Wight with 
Sir Andrew Ramsay, then Director of the Geo- 
logical Survey of Great Britain. Of course we 
talked in the evenings about the book ; and I was 
surprised to find that he entirely agreed with its 
views. I had then, as I still have, the greatest 
admiration for Professor Ramsay. I looked up 
to him as a model of all that a geologist should 
be, and was astonished at his knowledge of detail 
in everything relating to his science. Judge 
therefore of the shock I felt when my cherished 
ideas were gently but completely taken to pieces 
and their hollowness exposed. 

Needless to say I returned from that expedition 
a Darwinian ; and during the next six months I 
carefully studied the subject. About that time 
another geological friend, the late S. P. Mackie, 
editor of the Geolog7st, asked me to write some- 
thing for his magazine; and I, brimful of youthful 
enthusiasm, offered an article on Darwin’s book. 


Darwinism 45 


This appeared in March and April, 1861; and, 
although poor enough stuff, as I now very well 
know, it brought me an extremely kind and 
characteristic letter from the great Darwin him- 
self; a letter which, I need scarcely say, I have 
treasured ever since. You will not, I hope, ac- 
cuse me of vanity if I read this letter to you. I 
wish to do so not on account of its reference to 
my article, but because any letter from Darwin 
relating to his now famous theory must be of in- 
terest ; and especially a letter written not much 
more than a year after his book had appeared. 
The letter ran as follows : 


DOWN, BROMLEY, KENT, 
April 20th (1861). 


DEAR Sir,—I hope that you will permit me to thank 
you for sending me a copy of your paper in the Geologist, 
and at the same time to express my opinion that you have 
done the subject a real service by the highly original, 
striking, and condensed manner with which you have 
put the case. Iam actually weary of telling people that 
I do not pretend to adduce direct evidence of one species 
changing into another, but that I believe that this view 
in the main is correct, because so many phenomena can 
be thus grouped together and explained. 

But it is generally of no use; I-cannot make persons 
see this. I generally throw in their teeth the universally 
admitted theory of the undulations of light—neither the 
undulations, nor the very existence of Ether being proved 
—yet admitted because the view explains so much. You 
are one of the very few who have seen this, and have now 


46 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


put it most forcibly and clearly. I am much pleased to 
see how carefully you have read my book, and, what is 
far more important, reflected on so many points with an 
independent spirit. As I am deeply interested in the 
subject (and I hope not exclusively under a personal 
point of view), I could not resist venturing to thank you 
for the right good service which you have done.—Pray 
believe me, dear sir, 
Yours faithfully and obliged, 
CHARLES DARWIN. 


This letter is interesting for three reasons. In 
the first place, it shows well the caution of Dar- 
win, who never pretended to have proved any- 
thing beyond what the evidence warranted. In 
the second place, it shows his kindness and 
courtesy to young naturalists, who, like myself, 
were quite unknown to him. It is astonishing 
that he, in his mature judgment, should speak in 
terms of encouragement about a juvenile essay, 
which I should now regret having published, if it 
had not been the means of procuring me the letter 
I have just read to you. And, in the third place it 
shows how strong, at the time, the current of popu- 
lar opinion must have been against him, when he 
so much appreciated the sympathy of an unknown 
naturalist. Howrapid has been thechange! Let 
us try to find the reason for this by comparing 
the argument which failed with Lamarck with 
that which succeeded in the hand of Darwin, 


Darwinism 47 


DARWIN’S ARGUMENT COMPARED WITH THAT 
OF LAMARCK 

Lamarck commenced by an induction from the 
facts of classification, and came to the conclusion 
that species do not differ essentially from varie- 
ties. So far he was right; but he then goes on 
to assume, without any reasons, that varieties are 
due to climate ; which is not a legitimate induc- 
tion from anything we know, asI shall show later 
on. He then argues that, as changes in physical 
geography take place slowly, therefore climate, 
and with it the habits of the plants and animals, 
must also slowly change, and, consequently, they 
will pass through the stage of varieties into 
that of new species. The only rational ex- 
planation he gives for these changes is the 
use or disuse of organs; an explanation quite 
inadequate. The argument as to the cause of 
change was a failure. He gave no explanation 
of the extinction of intermediate forms; and 
his induction, that species were of a _ similar 
nature to varieties, was founded on far too 
limited a range of facts to carry, by itself, con- 
viction of its truth. 

Darwin sets to work very differently.. He pre- 
pares the way by giving an account of the facts 
of variation in plants and animals under domestic- 


48 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


ation, and shows how these variations have been 
gradually accumulated, generation after genera- 
tion, by the artificial selection of man, partly in a 
methodical way and partly unmethodical, until 
the most dissimilar varieties have been produced 
from the same stock. ‘These varieties of the 
same species, he points out, differ from each 
other in much the same manner as do the 
‘species of a genus in a state of nature. He then 
proceeds to give the facts of variation in a nat- 
ural state, and comes to the same conclusion 
that Lamarck had arrived at before him, that 
species resemble varieties in many respects. But 
he does not stop here; he proceeds to put this 
conclusion to the proof, by making a deduction 
which can be verified. He says, “‘If it be true 
that species resemble varieties, then the species 
of the larger genera ought to be more vari- 
able (that is, ought to contain more varieties) 
than the species belonging to smaller genera.’’ 
To test this, he arranged the plants of twelve 
countries, and the beetles of two districts, in 
two nearly equal masses, the species of the larger 
genera on one side and those of the smaller genera 
on the other; and in every case it turned out that 
a larger proportion of the species on the side of 
the larger genera presented more varieties than 


Darwinism 49 


those on the side of the smaller genera; thus 
verifying his deduction. 

Having thus laid a firm foundation, he next 
offers an explanation of how varieties change into 
species. He shows that plants and animals tend 
to increase very rapidly, while the amount of 
vegetation (and consequently the amount of ani- 
mal life also) which the earth can support is 
strictly limited ; and so proves that more organ- 
isms come into existence than can possibly live ; 
that, in fact, in each year as many must die as are 
born ; and this gives rise to a struggle for exist- 
ence. 

Putting together, now, the fact of variation and 
the fact of the struggle for existence, he shows 
that generally those varieties which are best 
adapted to succeed in life will live the longest, 
and will leave most offspring, while the others 
will be killed off. ‘The successful individuals will 
hand down their useful characters to their off- 
spring, occasionally in a still more useful form ; 
and thus useful variations will tend more and 
more to improve, and succeeding generations will 
diverge more and more from the original stock. 
This process he calls natural selection ; and he 
shows how by its means the classification of all 
organic beings can be explained, and how it 

p 


50 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


would necessarily tend towards a general advance 
of organisation, although lowly forms would still 
survive to occupy their appropriate places in the 
scheme of nature, while some might even retro- 
grade. 

He then examines the laws of variation, of 
which he acknowledges our ignorance to be pro- 
found—discusses how much may be due to change 
in external conditions, and shows how use of one 
organ and disuse of another may bring about 
rudimentary structures by the unused parts be- 
coming atrophied from want of sufficient nourish- 
ment. 

This concludes the first part of his argument ; 
and, before advancing, he proceeds to discuss the 
objections —including that of hybridism—that 
may be urged against the theory, and says that 
some of them are so serious that he cannot reflect 
on them without in some degree being staggered ; 
but that, to the best of his judgment, the greater 
number are only apparent, while those that are 
real are not, he thinks, fatal to the theory. In 
this part of the book very nearly every objection 
that has since been made was considered in a 
thoroughly impartial manner, everything that 
could be urged against the theory being stated 
most forcibly; and its transparent honesty did as 


Darwinism 51 


much perhaps as the previous chapters to convert 
naturalists to the new faith ; for it showed that, 
after all, the argument for the immutability of 
species was a very weak one. And year by year 
the difficulties here discussed have grown fewer, 
while the argument in favour of the theory of de- 
velopment remains incontrovertible. 

Having thus proved natural selection to be a 
true cause, and one that largely explains the 
origin of species from varieties by causing a 
gradual divergence of character, and having con- 
sidered all the objections to that theory, he next 
proceeds to push the argument further, by pass- 
ing in review all the facts of geology and biology 
that bear upon the subject. He treats on the 
geological succession of organic beings, on the 
geographical distribution of plants and animals, 
on the mutual affinities between organic beings, 
on morphology and homologies, on embryology, 
and on rudimentary organs. He shows how the 
theory of descent offers an easy explanation of 
nearly all the phenomena of organic nature ; and 
so accumulates induction on induction as to leave 
no loophole for escape. 

In a concluding chapter he sums up the results, 
and points out that the chief cause of our unwill- 
ingness to admit that one species has given birth 


52 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


to other and distinct species is, that we are always 
slow in admitting great changes of which we do 
not see the steps. The mind cannot possibly 
grasp the full meaning of the term of even a mil- 
lion of years ; it cannot add up and perceive the 
full effects of the many slight variations accumu- 
lated during an almost infinite number of genera- 
tions ; and he ends as follows: ‘‘ It is interesting 
to contemplate a tangled bank, clothed with many 
plants of many kinds, with birds singing in the 
bushes, with various insects flitting about, and 
with worms crawling through the damp earth ; 

and to reflect that these elaborately constructed 
| forms, so different from each other, and dependent 
on each other in so complex a manner, have all 
been produced by laws acting around us. From 
the war of nature, from famine and death, the 
most exalted object which we are capable of con- 
ceiving, namely, the production of the higher 
animals, directly follows. ‘There is a grandeur 
in the view of life, with its several powers, having 
been originally breathed by the Creator into a 
few forms or into one ; and that, whilst this planet 
has gone cycling on according to the fixed law 
of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless 
forms, most beautiful and most wonderful, have 
been and are being evolved.”’ 


Darwinism 53 


Who could resist such an encyclopedia of 
knowledge? What was there to oppose it? No- 
thing but empty rhetoric, and a véchauffé of the 
difficulties already considered by Darwin. It 
was seen that the only argument which could be 
urged in favour of the special-creation theory was 
the old one of the sterility of hybrids ; and even 
that had broken down before the records of the 
numerous zoological and botanical gardens. No- 
thing could be done except to cover the retreat by 
raising a cloud of futile objections; and these 
soon ceased to have any weight. The victory 
was complete, and Darwinism has reigned ever 
since. 

In 1871 the Descent of Man was published, but 
met with little opposition, as it was an anticipated 
corollary from the theory of descent. As soon as 
it was shown that, in his bodily structure and in 
his embryonic development, man resembled the 
lower animals, and especially when it was shown 
that man had rudimentary muscles which were 
useless to him, but which were well developed 
and useful in other mammals, it was seen that he 
could not be excluded from thetheory. Difficult- 
ies were raised against natural selection having 
been the sole cause of the descent of man from the 
Apes, and these difficulties have not yet been 


54. Darwinism and Lamarckism 


overcome. At the present day no one can explain 
the origin of man; but all are agreed that he is 
descended from the lower animals.* 

It is generally thought that Darwin owed the 
idea of natural selection to Malthus. Indeed, he 
seems to have thought so himself ; for in a letter to 
Professor Heeckel he says, ‘‘ With my mind thus 
prepared I fortunately happened to read Malthus’s 
Essay on Population, and the idea of natural selec- 
tion through the struggle for existence at once 
occurred to me.’’ But Darwin forgets for the 
moment that, long before this, he had stated the 
Malthusian doctrine more correctly than Malthus 
himself; for in his Journal of a Naturalist, he 
says: ‘‘ We do not steadily bear in mind how 
profoundly ignorant we are of the conditions of 
existence of every animal ; nor do we always re- 
member that some check is constantly preventing 
the too rapid increase of every organised being 
left in a state of nature. The supply of food on 
an average remains constant, yet the tendency in 
every animal to increase by propagation is geo- 
metrical ; and its surprising effects have nowhere 
been more astonishingly shown than in the case of 
the European animals run wild during the last few 


1Tt is now generally agreed that the origin of man was 
due to selection and isolation (1899). 


Darwinism 55 


centuriesin America. Every animal in a state of 
nature regularly breeds; yet in a species long 
established any great increase in numbers is ob- 
viously impossible, and must be checked by some 
means.”’ 

Here we have the germ of the theory of the 
struggle for existence stated correctly, and ex- 
actly as it was re-stated twenty years later. 
Malthus, on the contrary, says that, while man 
tends to increase in geometrical ratio, his means 
of subsistence increases in arithmetical ratio only ; 
a statement difficult to prove, and different from 
that of Darwin. It is quite possible that the 
reading of Malthus’s book may have blown into 
flame the spark already existing in Darwin’s 
mind, and so may have been the means of evolv- 
ing the theory of natural selection ; but the whole 
credit really belongs to Darwin ; and it was only 
his excessive modesty that made him push the 
name of Malthus to the front. 


SCOPE AND RESULTS OF DARWINISM 


The essential feature of Darwinism is, undoubt- 
edly, the principle of selection ; but Darwin did 
so much to further the acceptance of the theory ot 
descent, that the whole doctrine of modern evolu- 
tion is popularly associated with his name. ‘This, 


56 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


however, is not correct; and Darwin himself 
would, J think, only claim that he had made the 
theory of development of species credible, and had 
thus indirectly influenced other subjects than 
biology. Darwin never used the word evolution 
until long after the Ovigin of Species was pub- 
lished. With him, as with all naturalists, it was 
called the development of species. The modern 
idea of evolution came about in this way: 

In 1852 Sir W. Thomson (now Lord Kelvin) 
discovered the principle of the dissipation of 
energy ; which is that, owing to the radiation of 
heat into space, where it is lost, the energy of the 
solar system is gradually, but surely, being dissip- 
ated ; and this dissipation of energy, added to 
the nebular hypothesis of Laplace, gave rise toa 
theory of the progress or evolution of the solar 
system.’ It wascertain metaphysicians who con- 

1 Notwithstanding the fact that, so far as we know, the 
whole stellar universe is composed of the same element- 
ary substances, we have no reason to suppose that it was 
formed by one operation. On the contrary, it seems to 
be a collection of independent stars, not arranged with 
any regularity, moving in all directions, and occasionally 
colliding. Consequently we cannot suppose that these 
stars owe their origin to any single scheme of develop- 
ment. Nevertheless the energy in the universe, which is 
now very unequally distributed, must slowly but surely 


be tending towards equal diffusion. 
Some astronomers think that the stellar universe is 


Darwinism 57 


nected this physical evolution with the develop- 
ment of species, and made one great doctrine of 
the evolution of the universe, including the hypo- 
thesis of abiogenesis, or the spontaneous genera- 
tion of living matter. But they attempted no 
proof of this connection. Indeed, none can be 
given. 


limited in space, and that there are no stars so far off that 
we cannotseethem. Bright stars, faint stars, and nebulze 
may all be at approximately the same distance from us, 
and may differ only in brightness. 

If this be the case, there must be a slow concentration 
of stars towards a centre ; and a time will come when all 
the stars will coalesce into a gigantic mass, which will 
cool down to the temperature of space. If therefore the 
universe is limited in space, it must also be limited in 
time. Forif the beginning had been an infinitely long 
time ago, this process of concentration and cooling would 
be over. Many astronomers, however, see no proof of 
the universe being limited in space, and consequently no 
proof that it is limited in time ; and it is possible that the 
unequal distribution of energy may be maintained by the 
occasional addition of new stars. 

The case is very different with the solar system ; for 
here the regularity of movements, the gradual increase in 
density of the planets the nearer they are to the sun, and 
the uniformity of chemical composition, distinctly imply 
acommon origin. We also know that the sun is radiat- 
ing away large quantities of heat each year; and yet its 
temperature cannot have been much greater than it is 
now ever since life appeared on the earth, for the heat of 
the ocean depends largely on the heat of the sun. The 
sun, therefore, must be receiving accessions of heat, which 
can only be due either to a constant rain of meteorites 


58 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


But, although Darwinism and the modern doc- 
trine of evolution are two very different things, it 
is undoubtedly true that, but for Darwin, we 
should not have heard much about evolution ; 
for it was he who taught us to believe in what is 
now called organic evolution, an essential part of 
the larger doctrine, and the one on which the 


on to its surface or to concentration of its mass. It is 
hardly possible that the first could supply sufficient heat, 
for meteors falling on the earth cause no appreciable rise 
in temperature; and therefore a large part, if not the 
whole, of this heat must be due to condensation, that is, 
to shrinking. Consequently the sun must formerly have 
been larger, and probably cooler, than it is now; and we 
can easily imagine that originally it embraced the whole 
solar system. 

When we examite our own planet, we find abundant 
evidence of a geological evolution. We know that at one 
time the earth was a molten globe, the exterior of which 
slowly cooled and consolidated. When sufficiently cold, 
the water, which had previously existed as vapour in the 
atmosphere, condensed into rain, which fell on the earth, 
filled up the hollows in the crust and formed the ocean, 
on the surface of which the first living organisms ap- 
peared. With the first rain, denudation of the land and 
the formation of sedimentary rocks commenced ; and the 
volume of these rocks has continually increased up to 
the present day. Raised from the bed of the ocean by 
the movements of the heated interior of the earth, they 
now form the greater part of the continents, while at the 
same time the oceans have probably increased in depth. 
This will go on until the interior of the earth is no longer 
sufficiently hot to cause oscillations of its surface; and 
then all the land will be gradually swept into the sea. 


Darwinism 59 


greatest stress is laid by evolutionists. But, 
leaving on one side this supposed connection 
of organic with physical evolution,—a connection 
never agreed to by Darwin,—let us see what were 
the direct effects of the acceptance of the theory 
of the development of species. 

In Biology it at once revolutionised our ideas 
about classification. When I was young I was 
taught that there were two different methods of 
classification, called respectively artificial and 
natural; that there might be many different classi- 
fications under either of these heads ; and that it 
was to a large extent a mere matter of individual 
opinion as to which was the best ; each and all 
having for its aim ‘‘ the double purpose of gen- 
eralising acquired facts, and of facilitating the 
diffusion of biological knowledge, by rendering it 
possible to recognise plants and animals which 
have been already described’’ (Henfrey). The 
artificial methods had more especially as their 
object an easy means for finding out the name of 
each species ; and, with this view, some one char- 
acter was taken to separate the groups, another 
the sub-groups, and so on. A familiar example 
is the classification of plants made by Linnzus. 
He first divided all flowering plants with perfect 
flowers into twenty classes, according to the 


60 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


number and coherence of the stamens; and each 
of these classes he again divided into orders, 
according to the number of carpels. This was 
very simple and easy to understand; but un- 
fortunately it brought together plants which were 
evidently very unlike, and it often separated 
plants which were evidently closely related. In- 
deed, there are cases where, if the system were 
logically carried out, it would place in different 
classes different flowers on the same plant. The 
natural methods aimed more at bringing together 
plants or animals which their general structure 
showed to be mutually connected ; and they took 
a combination of characters as a test of this rela- 
tionship. These classifications were intended to 
point out the agreements among organisms ; and 
they were only indirectly useful as a means of 
recognising the name of a species. The great 
difficulty here was to find out which characters 
were of more importance and which were sub- 
ordinate ; and this naturally gave rise to very 
different opinions, so that the natural systems be- 
came as numerous as the artificial ones. 

All was in confusion until the Origin of Species 
appeared, in which Darwin pointed out that there 
was only one natural system of classification ; 
that which represented a genealogical tree. The 


Darwinism 61 


‘ 


terms ‘‘ affinity’’ and ‘‘relationship,’’ so long 
used in a metaphorical sense, had now a plain 
meaning; naturalists were no longer ‘‘ incessantly 
haunted by the shadowy doubt whether this or 
that form be a true species,’’ and all had the single 
object in view—of tracing out this genealogical 
tree. But Darwinism did not stop here : it gave 
naturalists three entirely new clues wherewith to 
trace out genealogies. Oneis embryology, which 
as Darwin says, will often reveal to us the struct- 
ure of the prototype ; the second is the study of 
homologies, or similarities of structure in organs 
fulfilling different functions; the third is rever- 
sion, or atavism, by which long-lost characters 
are occasionally reproduced. Indeed, one of the 
most important discoveries of Darwin—one that 
will bear fruit in years to come—is the remarkable 
phenomenon of latent characters; a subject to 
which I shall refer presently. Again, how much 
have biologists learnt from Darwin’s experiments 
and observations on the effects of cross-fertilisation 
in plants. ‘The discovery of a reason why there 
are two sexes in plants and in animals is of the 
highest value in physiology ; while his observa- 
tions on sexual selection among animals, and on 
the means of securing cross-fertilisation among 
plants, have clearly proved that a large number 


62 Darwinism and Lamarckism ~ 


of elaborately formed organs are of adaptive 
origin ; that is, they have been gradually formed 
because they proved to be useful, and were not 
simply used because they were there. Once 
again, how plain is now the meaning of rudi- 
mentary organs in plants and in animals; how 
often we can read their history, and see dimly the 
past stages in which these organs were once use- 
ful to their possessors. How true now becomes 
the pregnant sentence of the master, ‘‘ The struct- 
ure of each part of each species, for whatever 
purpose used, will be the sum of the many in- 
herited changes through which that species has 
passed during its successive adaptations to changed 
habits and conditions of life.’”’ Truly, ‘‘ we no 
longer look at an organic being as a savage looks 
at a ship, as something wholly beyond his com- 
prehension ’’; and this is the result of Darwinism. 

Turning now to Geology, we find three great 
results from the teaching of Darwin. First, we 
have had our eyes opened to the imperfection of 
the geological record. Dimly seen at first, as the 
necessary effect of the destruction of rocks by the 
denudation of sea and rain, its full significance 
has now been forced upon geologists with a hand 
of iron ; and this has had the effect of stopping 
many a wild speculation about universal catas- 


Darwinism 63 


trophes and the replenishment of the world. 
Secondly, by means of the theory of descent 
geologists are beginning, as Darwin said they 
would, to gauge with some security the relative 
duration of intervals of time by a comparison of 
the preceding with the succeeding forms of life ; 
or, in other words, we have learnt that the 
amount of the agreement or disagreement be- 
tween two successive fossil faunas depends largely 
upon the length of time which separates them. 
And thirdly, by proving that the species of a 
genus, and the genera of a family, have all de- 
scended from common parents, a flood of light has 
been thrown on the former physical geography 
of the earth. By this means we can prove that 
Madagascar was once united to Africa, Borneo to 
Asia, Tasmania and New Guinea to Australia ; 
that New Zealand has been separated from Aus- 
tralia ever since the cretaceous period ; and that 
it has since then always remained as an island, 
and has never been entirely submerged below the 
sea. This, and much more, which I have no 
time even to mention, we could not have proved 
except for Darwinism. Indeed, by means of Dar- 
Winism, geologists can prove that there have al- 
ways been land and fresh water on the face of the 
earth ever since the Silurian period ; that since 


64 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


the Cambrian period there has never been a col- 
lision of the earth, or sun, or any member of the 
solar system, with a comet, or any other heavenly 
body, by which heat sufficient to destroy life on 
the earth has been generated. And if, knowing 
that the earth has supported life continuously for 
more than twenty millions of years, we can now, 
by the theory of chances, look forward trustfully 
to the future, and deride the prophets who fore- 
tell direful collisions with comets by which the 
earth shall melt away, we have to thank Darwin- 
ism for our new confidence. 

There is another evil dream from which we 
have been relieved by Darwinism. I allude to 
the idea so well expressed in /z Memoriam that 
Nature, red in tooth and claw with rapine, 
shrieked against the creed of the goodness of God 
as displayed in Nature. 


Are God and Nature then at strife, 
That Nature lends such evil dreams? 
So careful of the type she seems, 

So careless of the single life ; 


‘**So careful of the type?’”’ but no, 
From scarpéd cliff and quarried stone 
She cries, ‘‘ A thousand types are gone; 
I care for nothing, all shall go.”’ 


Darwin has taught us that “‘ I care for nothing, 


Darwinism 65 


all shall go,’”’ is a mistake. It is doubtless true — 
that the individual must perish ; but it perishes 
for the good of the race; or perhaps for the 
good of some other race ; and, indirectly, it is by 
the death of the individual that progress is se- 
cured. It is only by narrowness of vision—by 
fixing our eyes on the individual instead of on the 
race—that we get the idea that God and Nature 
are at strife. So far as man is concerned we have 
every reason to believe that he will never become 
extinct, but that the form and proportions of his 
body, which at present distinguish him, will re- 
main essentially the same to the end ; because, 
by the development of his intellect his body has 
become liberated from the law of natural selection. 

The effects of Darwinism on Psychology and 
Ethics have also been very great; but they are 
chiefly due to the development of the doctrine by 
others. Mr. Darwin, however, clearly saw the 
line his views would lead to ; for in the Origzz of 
Species he says: ‘‘ In the future I see open fields 
for far more important researches. Psychology 
will be securely based on a new foundation, that 
of the necessary acquirement of each mental power 
and capacity by gradation.’’’ And, though nota 


1 This ‘‘new foundation’ had been already laid down 
by Mr. Herbert Spencer. 
5 


66 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


trained psychologist, his researches have gone far 
towards revolutionising that branch of inquiry. 
The chapter on Instinct in the Ovigzn of Species 
was his first contribution in this direction ; and it 
cleared up much ambiguity by showing that, 
although some instincts may be inherited habits, 
as taught by Lamarck, others have certainly been 
acquired unconsciously by means of natural selec- 
tion. But of far more importance were the chap- 
ters in the Descent of Man on the comparison of 
the mental powers of man with those of the lower 
animals, and on the development of the intel- 
lectual and moral faculties during primeval and 
civilised times. Darwin himself modestly says, 
‘This great question (the origin of the moral 
sense) has been discussed by many writers of con- 
summate ability ; and my only excuse for touch- 
ing upon it is the impossibility of here passing it 
over ; and because, so far as I know, no one has 
approached it exclusively from the side of natural 
history.’’ Nevertheless, in the opinion of Dr. 
Romanes, no mean judge, the result of this in- 
vestigation has been “‘ to give, if not a new point 
of departure to the science of ethics, at least a 
completely new conception as to the origin of the 
faculties with which that science has to deal ’’; 
and, according to Professor Clifford, it is ‘‘ the 


Darwinism 67 


simplest and clearest and most profound philo- 
sophy that was ever written upon the subject.’’ 


LIMITATIONS OF DARWINISM 


Such is Darwinism, and such are some of the 
effects that have flowed from it. How far they 
will extend in the future no onecan say. Never- 
theless, Darwinism has its limitations ; and I will 
now proceed to point them out. 

In the first place, natural selection does not 
appear to be capable of explaining all the changes 
that have taken place in plants and animals, but 
will only account for a certain number of them. 
This was always recognised by Darwin ; and in 
the Introduction to the first edition of the Ovigin 
of Species he says distinctly, ‘‘I am convinced 
that natural selection has been the main but not 
exclusive means of modification’’ ; and this is 
repeated in all subsequent editions. Many bio- 
logists are of opinion that there is an “‘ inherent 


) 


tendency’’ towards higher organisation; they 
think that protoplasm tends to become more and 
more complex, and that evolution is the inevita- 
ble outcome of a fundamental property of living 
matter. ‘This view is due to the difficulty of ex- 
plaining some phenomena in any other way; and 


it may be taken merely as an expression of our 


68 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


ignorance, whether or no it be true. Asa matter 
of fact, natural selection is at present the only 
known efficient cause of progress ; for the “‘ use 
and disuse’’ hypothesis is as yet unproved. 

Again, natural selection does not account for 
the origin of varieties. Darwin starts with the 
fact of variation, and shows how natural selection 
will affect it. On this account the name, “‘ Origin 
of Species,’’ has often been objected to ; but with- 
out any reason. If the book had been called 
‘* The Origin of Species by the Natural Selection 
of Varieties,’’ all ambiguity on this head would 
have been avoided. The origin of varieties and 
the laws of inheritance are not touched upon by 
the theory; and, although Darwin deeply investig- 
ated these mysteries, and proposed a provisional 
hypothesis, called Pangenesis, to group together 
the facts, it forms no part of Darwinism ; and itis 
understood that Darwin himself abandoned this 
hypothesis, or thought lightly of it. Still, it will 
conduce to the understanding of the limits of Dar- 
winism if I briefly describe Pangenesis, together 
with some of the known facts of inheritance and 
of variation ; and, as nearly all the facts have 
been collected by Darwin, the subject is strictly 
Darwinism, although not included in the popular 
sense of the word. 


Darwinism 69 


PANGENESIS 


To take the subject of inheritance first : start- 
ing from the observed fact that a particle of living 
protoplasm grows by the assimilation of food, we 
can understand that this living particle, endowed 
as it is with the power of contraction, might, 
when it reached a certain size, divide into two, 
and thus form two individuals exactly alike, and 
so on ad infinitum, so long as the supply of food 
lasted. But what are we to think when we find 
that the two portions of protoplasm do not sepa- 
rate, but remain attached, and that each grows 
by numerous divisions into quite different organs ? 
What further are we to think when we find that a 
portion of protoplasm, detached from this organ- 
ism, will go through a life-history exactly similar 
to that of its parent ? Take, for example, the par- 
ticle of protoplasm called the odspore of a fern. 
This will divide into two parts, by the formation 
of a thin membrane of cellulose ; and afterwards 
these two cells will develop quite differently, one 
forming the stem and fronds, the other the root. 
The root will perish altogether, but the fronds 
will produce spores, each one of which on germin- 
ation will produce a little plant, which in its 
turn will produce odspores ; and each of these 


70 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


oospores will go through exactly the same devel- 
opment as the first one did. 

No one as yet has been able to frame any prob- 
able explanation of these facts ; for Mr. Darwin 
never supposed that his hypothesis of Pangenesis 
was more than a speculation, which grouped to- 
gether a large number of them. This hypothesis 
assumes that each cell of an organism gives off 
minute detached particles, called gemmules, which 
are capable of multiplying by self-division. These 
gemmules circulate through the whole system, 
and are collected together into those cells whose 
function it is to produce a new organism. In 
this way they are transmitted by the parent to the 
offspring ; and each gemmule is then capable of 
development into a cell similar to that from which 
it was detached. But it can only develop when 
it finds itself in a position in the new organism 
similar to the position of its parent cell in the old 
organism. For instance, suppose that in a grow- 
ing plant the cell A produced by division the cell 
B and that each gave off gemmules called a and 
f respectively. Then in the young plant f can 
only develop on @ in the same position that B 
held to A, and, until it finds that position, 7 
may be transmitted from generation to generation 
in an undeveloped state; but it will always be 


Darwinism 71 


capable of development whenever it finds the 
necessary conditions. 

It is evident that this hypothesis does not ac- 
count for the first origination of the ancestor of 
B; it only accounts for transmission from one 
generation to another. Still, so far as transmis- 
sion is concerned, the hypothesis might go far 
towards explaining the facts of inheritance, if 
these facts were always constant. But such is 
not the case. In the first place, the force—if the 
expression may be allowed—the force of inherit- 
ance, although always strong, varies in different 
races, or even in different individuals of the same 
race. For instance, most people know that, 
although some lop-eared rabbits breed true, in 
others the tendency to produce young with 
drooping ears is very uncertain ; and this is not 
due to any impurity of blood ; for brothers and 
sisters differ much in this respect. It is not so 


ce 


well known that if the seeds of a ‘‘ weeping ”’ 
tree—that is a tree in which the branches hang 
down—be sown, some of the young plants will 
show a tendency to weep at once ; others perhaps 
not for twenty years; others not at all. This — 
proves incontestably that the power of transmis- 
sion is individual, because it varies in different 


individuals ; so that, if these characters are due 


72 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


to the development of inherited gemmules, differ- 
ent individuals must contain different quantities 
of these gemmules, and consequently their num- 
ber must be limited. 

On the other hand, one of the most remarkable 
facts connected with inheritance is, that trans- 
mitted characters may remain dormant, or latent, 
in one individual, who nevertheless may pass 
them on to another individual in which they may 
be developed. A good milking cow, for instance, 
can transmit her good qualities through her male . 
offspring. Sometimes, indeed, these latent char- 
acters may be abnormally developed; as when an 
old hen assumes the plumage and spurs of a cock 
and begins to crow; but usually they remain 
latent all through life. Indeed, ancestral char- 
acters can remain latent for many generations. 
For example, all our various breeds of fancy 
pigeons are undoubtedly descended from the wild 
‘* Blue Rock,’’ which is chiefly characterised by 
its blue colour, and by having two black bands 
on each wing and one on the tail. Everyone 
knows that some of the races of fancy pigeons 
have none of these characters. Some are pure 
white ; some pure black ; and several races are 
known to have bred true for more than a century. 
Yet Mr. Darwin has shown that, if any two breeds 


Darwinism 73 


of pigeons are crossed, no matter what their colour 
may be, the young almost always, and in the sec- 
ond cross always, show a tendency to become blue 
and to have two black bars on the wings and one 
on the tail; in fact, to revert to their ancestral 
characters, which must, in many cases, have lain 
dormant for an unknown number of generations. 
Now, if these characters result from the devel- 
opment of material bodies, or gemmules, given 
off by their remote ancestors, the gemmules must 
either be given off in numbers altogether incredi- 
ble, or they must be capable of multiplying ad 
infinitum. But, on the latter supposition, how 
could the power of transmission vary in different 
individuals? and how could one individual in- 
herit a character more strongly than another, as 
in the case just mentioned of weeping trees? If 
the gemmules are capable of multiplying, it is in- 
credible that the transmission of a few more or 
less could make any difference. Butif gemmules, 
either in finite or in infinite numbers, or in finite 
numbers but capable of infinite increase, are in- 
admissible, in what way can we conceive any 
material particles to exist? And yet, without 
some special material body to work upon, how 
can we conceive any force reproducing latent 
characters at all? Here, then, we have a mystery 


74 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


lying altogether beyond the boundary of Darwin- 
ism, and one which Darwin never pretended to 
have explained. 

It is much the same with the facts of variation. 
Here also the great difficulty in framing an hy- 
pothesis that will account for the facts is the great 
irregularity among the facts themselves. But, 
before giving you illustrations of this, it is neces- 
sary to remind you that offspring may differ from 
their parents in two ways, first by developing new 
characters, and secondly by reversion, or the de- 
velopment of latent ancestral characters. Now 
by variation naturalists mean the first only ; but 
it is often not easy to decide whether a difference 
between parent or offspring is due to variation or 
to reversion. 

The tendency to vary differs very much in 
different species of plants and animals: in some 
it is difficult to find two individuals alike; in 
others it is difficult to find any difference, even 
when a considerable number of individuals are 
compared. Groups of species sometimes follow 
the same rule ; for example, the veronicas in New 
Zealand are among the most variable of plants, 
while the veronicas of Europe are remarkably 
stable. But more important still is the fact that 
the tendency to vary can be modified by man. 


Darwinism 75 


Horticulturists, when they want to prevent plants 
from varying, sow the seed on poor soil ; if, on 
the contrary, they wish for variations, the plants 
are grown on good land, and separated from each 
other, so that they may growvigorously. It often 
takes time to make a species vary. Wild flowers 
on first being cultivated do not vary for several 
years ; and wild ducks when kept tame do not 
vary for the first five or six generations; but 
when in time the original colour or form shows 
an alteration, then variations will be abundant, 
and generally in many directions. Everyone 
knows with what rapidity new varieties of flowers 
are introduced by gardeners, when once the strict 
rule of inheritance has been broken through. 
Evidently the tendency to vary is increased by 
cultivation or domestication ; and it seems con- 
nected with an excess of food. But here, again, 
we come across many anomalies ; in some species 
domestication does not induce variation at all, 
as in the goose or in the rye, both of which 
hardly vary, notwithstanding that they have been 
domesticated for ages. Again, the variations 
induced by excess of food are not always accom- 
panied by increase in size; for we have small 
varieties of dogs and of fowls produced by the 
same means as the large varieties. 


76 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


Some parts are much more liable to vary than 
others. Colour is generally more variable than 
form ; but the opposite may be the case in some 
species. Again, variation in one part is some- 
times accompanied by variation in another part : 
for example, in pigeons the beak and feet vary 
together. Horses with a white star on the fore- 
head generally have white feet; while in black- 
and-tan dogs tan feet go with tan spots over the 
eyes. 

It would naturally be thought that changes in 
external conditions, especially in climate, would 
produce variation in the plants and animals ; and 
this was the view which Lamarck took. Buta 
little investigation shows that such is not the case. 
No doubt any particular individual may be 
affected by climate, as we see with trees grown 
in the wind or in the shade ; but we have every 
reason to think that these individual variations, 
caused directly by the action of climate, are but 
rarely, if ever, transmitted to the offspring, and 
do not therefore accumulate. A familiar ex- 
ample is found in the sheep, the tails of which 
have been cut off for many generations ; and yet 
no farmer expects to find his lambs with short. 
tails. The fact that many species of plants and 
of animals are found living, almost all over the 


Darwinism ay 


world, under the most different conditions of food 
and climate, without any sensible variation, is 
alone sufficient to show that a change in external 
conditions does not necessarily produce varia- 
tion ; while the fact that variations may be pro- 
duced under apparently exactly similar conditions 
(as when two varieties of flowers occur on the 
same plant), shows that change is not necessary 
for variation. 

Again, variations take place under all latitudes, 
wherever plants and animals are found ; and it is 
by no means necessary that the climate should be 
a congenial one to induce variation; for the 
orange, which can barely live in the north of 
Italy, has varied there very much. And again, 
nearly similar variations may occur under very 
dissimilar climates, as is illustrated by the re- 
markable analogous varieties of pigeons in India 
and in Europe. If we turn to domesticated ani- 
mals, we find that variability is by no means 
closely related to the amount of change in con- 
ditions. ‘The most variable of domesticated birds 
in Europe are the pigeon, the fowl, and the duck ; 
and of these the pigeon and the duck are natives 
of Europe, while the fowl is a native of India. 
On the other hand, the goose, guinea-fowl, turkey, 
and peacock have hardly varied at,all in Europe ; 


78 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


and yet the guinea-fowl comes from Africa, the 
turkey from America, and the peacock from India. 
Evidently change in external conditions will not 
account for variation, and individual constitution 
is of more importance. At the same time, do- 
mestication, with an abundant supply of food, in 
time induces most plants and animals to vary ; 
and consequently, change in conditions and in 
habits must in some way indirectly promote vari- 
ation ; but whether there is in addition any innate 
tendency to vary, we have as yet no sufficient 
proof. 

So complicated and apparently contradictory 
are the facts of variation, that some naturalists 
have assumed that no law reigns at all; that, in 
fact, variation from the parent in every direction 
is the normal condition, and that inheritance is 
the law which checks variation. If we could 
accept this idea, it would get over many difficult- 
ies in the way of explaining evolution; but 
Darwin, ever loyal to the truth, has shown that 
it cannot be accepted, and that the phenomena 
of inheritance are quite as irregular as those of 
variation. 

On the hypothesis of Pangenesis we might look 
upon variation as the occasional abnormal devel- 
opment of gemmules in two ways: either by gem- 


Darwinism 79 


mules developing on other cells than their proper 
neighbour ; or else that, although developing in 
the right place, they do not correctly reproduce the 
parent cell. In the first case we must suppose 
that the gemmule, which ought to have developed 
in that place, was absent; and, consequently, 
that a variable species is one that produces few 
gemmules. ‘This, of course, implies that different 
species give off different quantities of gemmules ; 
and, consequently, that their number is not in- 
finite ; which once more brings upon us the diffi- 
culty of explaining latent characters. Increase 
of nourishment, if it had any effect at all, would, 
we should think, tend to increase the number of 
gemmules, and thus to decrease the tendency to 
variation ; but it has just the contrary effect. In 
the second case we must assume that the abnormal 
growth of the gemmules is due to the action of 
some external cause ; and, therefore, that varia- 
tion ought to show some sort of relation to 
changed circumstances ; which can hardly be said 
to be the case. Still, this is conceivable; our 
chief difficulty in receiving the hypothesis lies in 
believing in the existence of gemmules at all. 
And yet there are reasons for thinking that 
variation is due to some physical and material 
cause; for, if it were not so, what are we to think 


80 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


of monstrosities—of animals born with two heads, 
or without any legs? and how else can we con- 
ceive of a necessary correlation between two 
different parts? But the strongest evidence that 
variation is due to some physical force lies in the 
fact that we are able to modify it to some extent ; 
to increase or to decrease it by altering the amount 
of food. It is true that we can do this only toa 
very small extent ; yet the fact of being able to 
influence it at all is a sufficient proof of its ma- 
terial nature. At present we can only accept in- 
heritance and variation as observed facts, the 
explanation of which is beyond the pale of 
Darwinism. 

In 1859 the mystery of mysteries was the origin 
of species. It was Darwin who showed us how 
simple is the explanation of that mystery; but he 
only pushed it one step back. The mystery of 
mysteries is still confronting us, as inscrutable as 
ever, and is now called ‘‘ transmission of char- 
acters.’’ But what a change the gaining of this 
single step has made! When shall we take an- 
other? We have just seen that the transmission 
of characters and the origin of variations, in all 
probability depend upon physical causes; and, 
if this is the case, we may hope that they are not 
beyond the power of the human intellect to under- 


Darwinism 81 


stand ; and therefore we may hope that they will 
be explained. The last step would be the ex- 
planation of the nature and origin of life itself ; 
but this appears to be quite unfathomable by our 
senses. No one as yet has given us even a con- 
ceivable explanation, much less a possible one. 
It is a problem that will probably always remain 
shrouded in mystery, although no doubt the hu- 
man intellect will always be trying to solve it. 

And now, ladies and gentlemen, I have ex- 
plained to the best of my ability the scope and 
limits of Darwinism. All through the lecture I 
have felt the difficulty of expounding clearly so 
vast a subject in so short a time; and I could 
have wished it had been placed in other hands. 
It was necessary for me to be concise, in order 
not to leave out any important point ; and if at 
times I have been dry and obscure, I will ask you 
to remember this necessity for condensation, and 
to believe that I have tried to make my language 
as plain and as intelligible as possible. 


LECTURE II 
THE NEW DARWINISM 


LEVEN years ago I gave a lecture to the 
members of this Institute, in which I ex- 
plained what was then understood as Darwinism ; 
and I have now undertaken to try to explain the 
modern views held by Darwin’s followers. Un- 
fortunately it is a subject which, at the present 
time, is in a very confused condition, owing to 
the innumerable irrelevant issues that have been 
raised around it; but, when all the husk has 
been stripped off, the new Darwinism will be 
found to be a simple affair, easily understood. 

This confusion is largely due to its history; for 
the new Darwinism did not come upon us ina 
flash, as did the old, but has been gradually as- 
suming shape for many years. 

In 1868 Moritz Wagner read a paper to the 
Royal Academy of Munich, in which he main- 
tained that, without the separation of a few indi- 

82 


The New Darwinism 83 


viduals from the rest of the species, natural 
selection could not act, and that these individuals 
must always have been isolated by geographical 
barriers. His thesis could not be upheld on 
either point, although it brought the importance 
of isolation prominently forward ; and we may 
place the birth of the new Darwinism in Novem- 
ber, 1886, when Dr. Romanes’s first paper on 
physiological selection was published by the 
Linnean Society of London ; for this contained 
anew idea. From that time it has gone on gain- 
ing coherence ; and last year (1897) it received 
its latest development in the third part of Darwin 
and After Darwin, also the work of Dr. Romanes. 

This new Darwinism has not destroyed, or in 
the least damaged, the old. Indeed, it is not an- 
tagonistic to it in any way. It is merely an 
addition ; but one of great value, for, as I shall 
explain at the end of the lecture, it enlarges much 
our conception of the great scheme of nature. 
The doctrine of organic evolution, which was 
firmly established by Darwin, is now regarded as 
a fact by all scientific men; and his theory of 
natural selection, as a method of progressive evo- 
lution, is accepted, to a greater or less degree, by 
_ most naturalists. Darwin himself, as I reminded 
| you in my former lecture, never thought that his 


84 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


theory was complete. He always taught that 
natural selection had been the main but not the 
exclusive means of modification. He knew that 
something was wanting ; and it is that something 
which the new Darwinism attempts to supply. 


THE NEO-DARWINIANS AND THE NEO- 
LAMARCKIANS 


The Neo-Darwinians, as we are sometimes 
called, accept Darwin’s teaching, and supplement 
the theory of natural selection with methods of tso- 
lation, which had been either overlooked or had 
not been brought into sufficient prominence by 
Mr. Darwin. Those naturalists who hold the 
opinion that natural selection has been of little 
importance in evolution call themselves Neo- 
Lamarckians ; for they think that the teaching 
of Lamarck is nearer the truth than that of Dar- 
win. And, in order that we may set out with 
clear notions of the differences between these two 
schools, it will be necessary for me to remind you, © 
shortly, of the leading points in each ; although 
I do not intend to go again over quite the same 
ground as I took you before. 

The first great problem to be solved in organic 
evolution is the fact of progression upwards, from 
the simplest organisms to the most complicated, 


The New Darwinism 85 


Progress implies a directive or determinative 
agency ; and the question which presents itself is 
this: Are the variations definite, that is, in a 
single direction, as they arise? Or are they in- 
definite, that is, in many directions; and has 
progress been secured by some subsequent selec- 
tion of certain variations to the exclusion of 
others? In other words, can we see the elements 
of progress in the variations themselves? Or 
must we look for progress to some process which 
comes into operation after the variations have 
been formed ? 

Now, Lamarck’s theory is one of definite varia- 
tion. He taught that progress was due to an in- 
ternal tendency towards progression, combined 
with the action of external conditions on the 
organism, and with the more or less frequent use 
of the different organs of the body, due to differ- 
ent wants, which were caused by changed habits. 
For example, he supposed that the constant 
stretching of the toes of the otter in the act of 
swimming had caused the skin between the toes 
to enlarge; that constant running had made deer 
and antelopes fleet ; and that constant stretching 
of the neck of the giraffe had made it grow. The 
variations that arose in this way must therefore 
be definite or progressive, and must have been 


86 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


acquired after birth. He had only to assume that 
these acquired characters were transmitted to the 
next generation, and his theory was complete. 
The Neo-Lamarckians agree that progress has 
been mainly—although perhaps not exclusively— 
secured by the inheritance of post-natal variations, 
which have arisen, either through the attempts of 
animals and plants to adapt themselves to external 
conditions, or by the direct action of external 
causes on the individuals. The rest they refer to 
natural selection, the idea of an internal tendency 
towards progression being generally discarded. 
Darwin taught that post-natal variations, due 
to the direct action of external conditions, are 
seldom, if ever, transmitted ; and he held that 
progress has been chiefly due to the picking out 
of certain indefinite variations by the process of 
natural selection. Lamarck’s theory, therefore, 
includes both the origin and the preservation of 
variations ; for the variations are preserved by 
the conditions which called them into existence ; 
while Darwin’s theory relates to the preservation 
and development of variations only, and makes 
no attempt to explain their origin. Even with 
reference to the preservation of variations, the 
two theories are not exactly antagonistic ; and 
they might possibly flourish side by side: for 


The New Darwinism 87 


natural selection, although favourable to the hy- 
pothesis of indefinite variation, is not opposed to 
that of definite variation. It is only a process of 
picking out useful variations, no matter how they 
have arisen. 

It may be thought that it would be easy to test 
the truth of these two hypotheses by observation. 
If variations are indefinite, they will range them- 
selves equally on each side of a centre ; while of 
definite variations the majority would tend in one 
direction. But hitherto all attempts to settle this 
point have failed. Variation in domesticated 
animals and plants appears to be indefinite ; but 
it does not necessarily follow that it is so ina 
state of nature. We have a good example of this 
in the dimensions of the leg-bones of the moas 
which were found at Kapua and Enfield.’ Here 
the majority of cases undoubtedly show indefinite 
variation ; but there are several exceptions ; and 
I could not give a decided opinion on the subject ; 
because, as Professor Lloyd Morgan has pointed 
out, variation apparently definite may be due to 
the action of selection. 

Also it has been found impossible to prove con- 
clusively that post-natally acquired characters can 


1See the diagrams in Tvansactions, N. Z. Institute, 
vol. xxviii., pp. 643-650. 


88 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


be transmitted. When we examine a series of 
fossils which show progressive development, we 
cannot feel sure that this development has been 
due to definite variation, unless it appears that 
the modification has not been of any advantage 
to its possessor ; for, if the modification was ad- 
vantageous, it might have been brought about by 
natural selection. And in those cases where the 
characters appear to be useless to their possessor, 
we cannot prove that they are of post-natal origin; 
for definite variations may be congenital, and 
due to some unknown factor in the laws of growth. 
The fundamental difference between Lamarckism 
and Darwinism lies in this—that for the former it 
is necessary that post-natal variations should be 
capable of transmission to the next generation, 
while to the latter such transmission is not neces- 
sary. Unfortunately, we can find no crucial case 
of such naturally acquired characters being trans- » 
mitted; for all must be useful, and all must there- 
fore be capable of being explained by natural 
selection ; and there is no undisputed evidence 
that artificially acquired characters are ever 
transmitted. There is, therefore, no proof that 
post-natally acquired characters can be trans- 
mitted ; and the evidence is strongly against such 
being commonly the case. 


The New Darwinism 89 


THE INSUFFICIENCY OF NATURAL SELECTION 


We may now proceed to examine the difficulties 
in the way of considering natural selection as the 
sole agent in evolution ; and we shall then be in 
a position to appreciate the amendments proposed 
by the new Darwinians. 

The first difficulty is the existence of numerous 
characters, either of colour or of form, which are 
called non-utilitarian because they are not of any 
use to their possessors. Darwin always saw this 
difficulty ; but at first he thought that it would 
be overcome. In the first edition of the Ovzgzx 
of Species he attempts to explain these useless 
characters as being principally due to the inherit- 
ance of characters which were useful to ancestors 
of the present possessors, but partly as the results 
of correlation of growth. That is, he thought 
that they might be necessarily connected with 
other characters which are of use. No doubt the 
first explanation will account for the presence of 
useless rudimentary organs or vestiges, but they 
are comparatively few ; and still fewer are those 
characters which we may suppose to be due to 
correlation of growth. The great majority re- 
main unexplained. Ten or twelve years later 
Darwin recognised the force of this objection ; 


90 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


and in the Descent of Man he says: ‘‘In the 
earlier editions of my Ovigin of Species I per- 
haps attributed too much to the action of natural 
selection or survival of the fittest. I have altered 
the fifth edition of the Ovzgz7, so as to confine my 
remarks to adaptive changes of structure ; but I 
am convinced, from the light gained during the 
last few years, that very many structures which 
now appear to be useless will hereafter prove to 
be useful, and will therefore come within the 
range of natural selection. Nevertheless, I did 
not formerly consider sufficiently the existence of 
structures which, so far as we can at present 
judge, are neither beneficial nor injurious ; and 
this I believe to be one of the greatest oversights 
as yet detected in my work. It is, as I can now 
see, probable that all organic beings, including 
man, possess peculiarities of structure which 
neither are now, nor were formerly, of any service 
to them, and which therefore are of no physio- 
logical importance.’’ * 

Dr. Wallace, however, still argues that these 
characters are not really useless, but that we 
suppose them to be so, because we are so very 
ignorant of the habits of animals. He thinks it 
is impossible to prove that any character is not, 

1 The Descent of Man, 2d edition, p. 61. 


The New Darwinism QI 


nor ever has been, useful to its possessor, or that 
it is not necessarily correlated with some useful 
character ; and he has himself pointed out that 
many of these so-called useless characters are use- 
ful as recognition-marks ; that is, marks by which 
the individuals of a species are enabled to recog- 
nise each other. This theory of recognition-marks 
is probably true with reference to some of the 
higher animals; but it is very improbable that 
either form or colour could be used as recognition- 
marks among the lower animals ; and the theory 
obviously does not apply to blind animals or to 
plants. Even among animals possessing eyes, 
there are many characters which cannot be re- 
garded as recognition-marks ; for they cannot be 
seen : as, for example, the teeth on the tongues 
of snails, and the internal convolutions of the 
suture in the shells of ammonites. The neura- 
tion of the wings of moths and caddis-flies is 
obscured by scales or hairs; and yet it often 
furnishes good generic and sometimes specific 
characters. Some crabs are always covered with 
sea-weeds growing on their shells; and the species 
to which they belong cannot be ascertained until 
these sea-weeds have been removed. And gen- 
erally, obscure characters cannot be explained as 
recognition-marks when there are conspicuous 


92 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


characters to answer that purpose. ‘These specific 
characters, therefore, are not recognition-marks ; 
are they adaptations of any other kind? Wecan 
hardly suppose that the colours which distinguish 
the shells of some bivalves which live buried in 
sand have any adaptive value. Nor can we sup- 
pose that a spine more or less, or a different ar- 
rangement of the tubercles on the carapace of a 
crab, can give one individual an advantage over 
another. Neither can it matter in the struggle 
for life whether the nervure in the wing of an in- 
sect branches once or twice. Again, can we sup- 
pose that slight differences in the number or shape 
of the teeth in snails have any adaptive value? 
Or take the shape of the spicules in sponges, or 
the small differences in the leaves of ferns and 
mosses, or the various patterns of ornamentation 
on the valves of diatoms: can all or any of these 
characters be explained by the law of utility ? 
No one, I believe, is at present prepared to main- 
tain that they can. 

But it will be as well to give a few special illus- 
trations. ‘The Radiolarians are minute, micro- 
scopic animals, whose soft body is supported by 
an internal silicious cage, or skeleton, of great 
variety of form. Now these different forms can- 
not be correlated with each other, for each species 


The New Darwinism 93 


has its own; and they cannot be recognition- 
marks. The skeleton, of course, is useful to the 
animal as a support, and as a defence against 
enemies. But several of the forms which we find 
in living Radiolarians we also find in Radiolarians 
which lived before the commencement of the 
Paleozoic era. During almost the whole history 
of life on the earth these different forms of skeleton 
have been competing with each other. During 
this competition many other forms of skeleton 
came into existence; but they did not vanquish the 
old ones ; all lived and multiplied alongside each 
other, without any one obtaining the victory. 
Obviously, the particular form of the skeleton 
cannot give any advantage, and cannot therefore 
be due to natural selection. 

The Radiolarians are amongst the lowest of 
organisms. Now let us go to the highest class 
for an illustration. ‘The different species of ele- 
phants, both living and extinct, are distinguished, 
among other characters, by the different ways in 
which the enamel and dentine of the molar teeth 
are folded into transverse ridges. This folding 
of the hard enamel, and the filling of the inter- 
stices with a softer cement, is a very useful struct- 
ure ; for, owing to the different hardness of the 
different parts; an uneven surface is constantly 


94 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


maintained, which enables the tooth to fulfil its 
function of grinding down leaves and shoots of 
trees, on which both the species of living ele- 
phants feed. In the African elephant the trans- 
verse ridges are thicker in the middle than at the 
ends; while in the Indian elephant they are 
equally thick all through, and the number of 
ridges in each tooth is nearly double the number 
in those of the African elephant. In the Mam- 
moth this type of tooth was still more specialised 
than in the Indian elephant. Now extinct ele- 
phants of both types lived together in India dur- 
ing the Pliocene period. In the Pleistocene the 
African elephant lived in South Europe with 
other species, some of which belonged to the In- 
dian type; and at the close of the Pleistocene, the 
Mammoth, which had the most specialised teeth 
of any, became extinct. As these two forms were 
competing for so long a time, without either of 
them gaining any advantage, we cannot suppose 
that the two living species of elephant owe their 
preservation to the superior pattern of their molar 
teeth. The fact is that one pattern is as useful as 
the other, neither more nor less; and, as no ad- 
vantage is gained by having different patterns, 
they cannot have been developed by natural se- 
lection. 


The New Darwinism 95 


I am tempted to give one more illustration, 
taken from the class of birds. 

There is a genus of small fruit-pigeons, called 
Ptilonopus, found in the Malay Archipelago and 
Polynesia. It contains twenty-three species, of 
which no fewer than thirteen are found, isolated 
from other species of the genus, each in its own 
island or small group of islands; the other ten 
living associated, two or more species together. 
Now it is highly improbable that the whole of the 
thirteen isolated species were developed on other 
islands, from which they have migrated, and that 
their ancestors, who were left behind, have all 
become extinct in their former homes. Also, it is 
highly improbable that formerly two or more 
species of Przlonopus existed on each of these thir- 
teen islands, and that all have been destroyed 
except one species in each island. Hither one or 
other of these cases might happen occasionally ; 
but it is impossible that thirteen should occur 
simultaneously. Consequently, it appears cer- 
tain that most of these species were developed 
singly, each on its own island. If this be the 
case, the colours which now distinguish the 
different species cannot be recognition-marks, be- 
cause there is no other species in each island with 
which they could be confounded. ‘The colours 


96 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


cannot be due to correlation, because they are the 
only characters which have changed. ‘They can- 
not have been useful to ancestors, because they 
have only lately been developed. And we cannot 
suppose that they give any special advantage in 
each island, because all the islands have practic- 
ally the same climate and the same flora and 
fauna. ‘This exhausts the resources of the prin- 
ciple of utility; and we are driven to the conclusion 
that these specific characters have a non-utilitarian 
origin. And if the colours have not had a utili- 
tarian origin in these isolated species, it is quite 
probable that they may not have had a utilitarian 
origin in other cases, where two or more species 
of the genus are found together. ‘Therefore it 
follows that recognition-marks and other speci- 
fic characters do not necessarily arise through 
natural selection. To form these non-utilitar- 
ian characters something else must have been at 
work. 

A second objection is sometimes made, that in- 
cipient variations, even if they are useful, cannot 
be of any importance in the struggle for existence; 
and that natural selection could not develop them 
until they had made a considerable advance. 
This is quite true ; but it is only another form of 
the first difficulty ; for until the variations have 


The New Darwinism 97 


attained to what is called ‘‘ Selection Value’’ they 
are merely useless characters. 

The third difficulty is that natural selection, 
although a powerful cause of divergence between 
different species and genera, cannot by itself initi- 
ate divergent evolution. This will come as a sur- 
prise to many of you, who have learnt from the 
writings of Dr. Wallace that natural selection is 
the one great cause of divergence. Nevertheless, 
it is true that natural selection cannot make one 
species divide into two, but actually prevents 
such a thing from coming about. Natural selec- 
tion hinders variation, except in that direction 
which is the one most profitable to the whole of 
the individuals; and when the external condi- 
tions remain the same for a long time, it entirely 
destroys all new variations. Darwin, when dis- 
cussing the question of divergent evolution, says : 
‘“As has always been my practice, let us seek 
light on this head from our domestic productions.”’ 
After stating that fanciers of pigeons choose differ- 
ent characters, he asks, ‘‘Can any analogous 
principle apply in nature?’’ and he answers, ‘‘I 
believe it can and does apply most efficiently, 
from the simple circumstance that the more 
diversified the descendants from any one species 
become in structure, constitution, and habits, by 

7 


98 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


so much will they be the better enabled to seize 
on many diversified places in the polity of nature, 
and thus increase in numbers.’’ ’ 

But Mr. Darwin here forgets that the pigeon- 
fancier not only selects his birds, but he isolates 
them from each other; while natural selection 
does not isolate different individuals of the same 


inter- 


ce 


group. In another place he truly says, 
crossing plays a very important part in nature, by 
keeping individuals of the same species or of the 
same variety true and uniform in character’’; 
and he evidently overlooked the fact that this will 
prevent a species branching off and occupying 
diversified places in the polity of nature, unless 
there is some means by which the different varie- 
ties become isolated from each other, and thus 
escape from the effects of inter-crossing. 

Mr. Darwin tacitly acknowledges the failure of 
natural selection to produce divergence in the 
case of insects inhabiting islands. After pointing 
out the dangers encountered by flying insects in- 
habiting small islands, he says: ‘* When a new 
insect first arrived on the island, the tendency of 
natural selection to enlarge or to reduce the wings 
would depend on whether a greater number of 
individuals were saved by successfully battling 


! Origin of Species, ist edition, p. 112. 


The New Darwinism 99 


with the winds, or by giving up the attempt and 
rarely or never flying.’”’’ Here he recognises that 
there would be no splitting-up into two varieties, 
but that only the commoner one would be pre- 
served, although both were useful. Nevertheless, 
this very case is given by Dr. Wallace as an ex- 
ample of divergence under the action of natural 
selection.’ 

Some years later Mr. Darwin saw this difficulty 
more clearly ; for in a letter to Moritz Wagner, 
dated October 13, 1876, he says: ‘‘ I do not be- 
lieve that one species will give birth to two or 
more new species, so long as they are mingled to- 
gether in the same district.’’? *° Andon November 
26, 1878, he thus wrote to Professor K. Semper : 
‘‘ There are two different classes of cases, as it ap- 
pears to me, viz., those in which a species be- 
comes slowly modified in the same country, and 
those cases in which a species splits into two, 
or three, or more new species ; and in the latter 
case I should think nearly perfect separation 
would greatly aid their ‘ Specification,’ to coin a 
new word.”’ * 


1 Origin of Species, ist edition, p. 136. 
? Darwinism, 2d edition, p. 105. 

3 Life and Letters, vol. iii., p. 159. 

4 Life and Letters, vol, iii., p. 160. 


100 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


Dr. Wallace, however, still thinks that natural 
selection can produce divergence; but all the 
illustrations he gives in his book on Darwinism 
either include isolation, or they start with two or 
more different species, and so miss the point, 
which is that one species cannot give rise to two 
without the help of isolation. Also, when dis- 
cussing the influence of natural selection on in- 
fertility, he says that, ‘‘ if two forms of a species 
freely inter-cross with each other, and produce 
mongrel offspring which are quite fertile z7/er se, 
then the further differentiation of the forms into 
two distinct species will be retarded or perhaps 
entirely prevented.’’’ So, to help him in his 
argument, he assumes that the mongrel offspring 
are not quite fertile z7/er se. 

But if the two forms are thus liable to oblitera- 
tion, how could they possibly have arisen? ‘The 
partial sterility must have commenced before the 
two forms could have been produced, and, there- 
fore, before there were any mongrels. In other 
words, certain individuals must have been more 
or less physiologically isolated from each other 
before the two forms could have come into exist- 
ence. This supposed example of Dr. Wallace 
does not, therefore, explain the difficulty, which 


1 Darwinism, 2a edition, p. 174. 


The New Darwinism IOI 


is the origination of two forms from one, without 
the help of isolation. 

As this is a very important point, it will be 
better to illustrate it further. Let us take the 
simple case of the first organisms, floating on the 
surface of the sea, and belonging to one species 
only. We must, however, suppose—which was 
not really the case—that they increased in num- 
bers by conjugation and not by self-division ; for, 
unless we make this supposition, we cannot re- 
produce the action of natural selection without 
the aid of isolation. ‘There are reasons for sup- 
posing that the primeval ocean contained mineral 
hydrocarbons, which would slowly oxidise into 
carbohydrates, and thus furnish food for these 
first organisms.’ But this supply of food was 
limited ; and in time it would be necessary for 
some individuals to develop chlorophyll, so that 
they might obtain their supply of carbon from 
carbonic acid when the carbohydrates were con- 
sumed. Other individuals, however, would lead 
a more animal life, and live upon their neighbours. 
But if free inter-crossing was maintained, these 
two types could not completely differentiate ; for 


' Report of the Australasian Association for Advanced 
Sctence, vol. vii., Sydney (1898). Presidential Address 
to Section C. 


102 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


they would always be getting mixed up again ; 
and the whole group of organisms would progress 
in that single direction which was, on the whole, 
the most advantageous forthem. Evidently they 
could not become entirely animal, for they would 
then lose the power of obtaining food from the 
mineral substances around them; and they would 
not become entirely vegetable, because the power 
of digesting organic substances, either living or 
dead, would certainly be advantageous ; as also 
would be the power of moving about in quest of 
this food. So that, on the supposition that free 
inter-crossing took place, the original organisms 
could not have separated into plants and animals. 
Just as a river cannot branch on its way down 
its valley until the sea throws up a mud-bank at 
its mouth and forms a delta, so natural selection 
can only propel a species in one direction, unless 
isolation steps in and divides it into smaller 
groups. 

A fourth objection has been urged, that natural 
selection cannot explain the mutual sterility be- 
tween individuals of different species. So far as 
our present experience goes, it seems that com- 
plete fertility between individuals of different 
species is rare, and that nearly all are absolutely 
infertile. No matter what the characters may be 


The New Darwinism 103 


which distinguish the species—whether it be form 
or ornament, or mere colour—this infertility is 
almost always present ; and of all the innumer- 
able differences which separate species, it alone is 
constant, or nearly so. 

In my former lecture I pointed out that Darwin 
had shown that sterility between species was not 
absolute, as had previously been supposed ; and 
therefore it was not a fatal objection to the theory 
of the development of species. But although he 
did this he failed to give any satisfactory explana- 
tion of the facts ; and he himself did not believe 
that infertility could have been caused directly 
by natural selection. He suggested that the 
changes in structure were necessarily followed by 
physiological changes ; and, as neither the great 
structural changes which have taken place in do- 
mesticated animals, nor their exposure to greatly 
changed conditions of life—owing to man’s having 
taken them to different parts of the world—as 
neither of these things have produced infertility, 
Darwin had to add that, to bring it about, a very 
long time was required, together with exposure 
to uniform conditions. But these suggestions, 
which rest on no evidence, are quite insufficient 
to account for so important and so widespread a 
phenomenon ; and they imply that all incipient 


104. Darwinism and Lamarckism 


species or varieties are quite fertile among them- 
selves; aconclusion which Darwin himself says is 
not correct. | 

In the later editions of the Ovigin of Species he 
is still more explicit. He says: ‘‘ After mature 
reflection it seems to me that this [sterility] could 
not have been effected through natural selec- 
tion’’; and after giving some illustrations, he 
adds: ‘‘ But it would be superfluous to discuss 
this question in detail ; for with plants we have 
conclusive evidence that the sterility of crossed 
species must be due to some principle quite inde- 
pendent of natural selection; . . . and from 
the laws governing the various grades of sterility 
being so uniform throughout the animal and 
vegetable kingdoms, we may infer that the cause, 
whatever it may be, is the same, or nearly the 
same, in all cases.’’ ’ 

Now, our proper answer to this objection is, 
that it has nothing to do with Darwinism, which 
is a theory of the origin of species and higher 
groups by the preservation of variations; and 
does not attempt to explain their origin, whether 
they be physiological or morphological. The 
reason that the subject has been included in Dar- 


1 Origin of Species, 6th edition, p. 248. See also Life 
and Letters, vol. iii., p. 80. 


The New Darwinism 105 


winism is that Darwin so included it himself; 
for he at first thought that it could be explained 
by natural selection ; and all other authors have 
followed him; indeed, Dr. Wallace still maintains 
that natural selection can produce sterility.’ His 
argument, however, is founded on the old but 
erroneous idea that natural selection implies the 
exclusive breeding of like with like ; that it is 
strictly the survival of the best fitted, and not the 
destruction of the least fit. Also he has to as- 
sume that the morphological and physiological 
variations arise simultaneously, and that the 
former is of sufficient importance to be of selective 
value—two very improbable assumptions. It is 
indeed certain that natural selection could not 
have produced or even favoured sterility ; for it 
could never be profitable in the struggle for exist- 
ence to decrease fertility, unless that decrease was 
more than compensated for by extra protection 
given to the young. | 

This objection may therefore be dismissed, as 
lying outside our subject; for the Darwinian theory 
need not explain the mutual sterility between dif- 
ferent species. From our point of view infertility 
can only be looked upon as a means of isolation ; 
and, as such, I shall refer to it again presently. 


1 Darwinism, 2d edition, p. 174. 


106 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


ADDITIONS TO THE OLDER THEORY 


Let us see how the difficulties which I have 
mentioned have been met by the new Darwinians. 

Darwin says that his idea of natural selection 
was originally founded on the analogy between 
species in a state of nature and the races of plants 
and animals domesticated by man. He examined 
how these races had been brought into existence, 
and found in the principle of Malthus—the prin- 
ciple that population always tends to overtake the 
food supply—a process acting in nature, which 
was, he thought, analogous to human agency ; 
and it was this that he called natural selection. 
Now the artificial selection by man includes, as I 
have already said, two different processes : first, 
the individuals, and, secondly, their separation or 
isolation from all others with which they might 
interbreed. These two processes are quite dis- 
tinct. Wecan select one or two more individuals 
without isolating them ; or we can isolate one or 
more individuals without selecting them. It is 
the isolation which preserves the variation, selec- 
tion being directive only. But in natural selection 
no such division can be made ; so that it does not 
cover the same ground as artificial selection. 

Of course, Darwin was quite aware of this; in- 


The New Darwinism 107 


deed, he expressly mentionsit. ‘‘ The prevention 


c¢ 


of free crossing,’’ he says, ‘‘ and the intentional 
matching of individual animals, are the corner- 
stones of the breeder’s art.’’ ’ 

But his attention was so much occupied with 
establishing the theory of natural selection, in 
which the act of selection also isolates, that he 
overlooked the fact that, without some other 
form of isolation, his analogy was incomplete, and 
that natural selection alone could not attain to 
any great importance. Sometimes he half recog- 
nises this, as when he says’: ‘‘ Isolation is an 
important element in the process of natural selec- 
intercrosses with the individuals of 


¢¢ 


tion,’’ for 
the same species will be prevented ’’ by its means. 
But he also adds that ‘‘isolation probably acts 
more efficiently in checking the immigration of 
better adapted organisms ; and thus new places 
in the natural economy of a country are left open 
for the old inhabitants to struggle for, and be- 
come adapted to, through modifications in their 
structure and constitution.’’ Again he says, 
‘* Although I do not doubt that isolation is of 
considerable importance in the production of new 


1 Animals and Plants under Domestication, 2d edition, 
vol. ii., p. 62. 
* Origin of Species, 1st edition, p. 104. 


108 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


species, on the whole I am inclined to believe 
that largeness of area is of more importance.’’ 

These quotations show that Mr. Darwin had 
not attained clear ideas on the subject. But with 
him isolation was limited to geographical isola- 
tion ; and from this point of view his remarks 
may be correct. He failed, however, to see that 
isolation of some kind or other, on the larger areas 
of land, was necessary to allow natural selection 
full play. It was the recognition of this by 
Moritz Wagner, Dr. Romanes, and others that 
gave rise to the new Darwinism ; which, put into 
a nutshell, is the raising of isolation to its proper 
place in the Darwinian theory. 

This isolation, which is so necessary to prevent 
the effects of free inter-crossing, has been found 
on investigation to be a very complicated affair. 
In the first place, it is important to notice that 
the individuals which are isolated from the rest 
may be taken haphazard, so far as any external 
characters are concerned ; or the possession of 
some special external character may be the cause 
of their being isolated. ‘The first of these two 
cases is called zzdiscriminate tsolation, that is, is- 
olation without selection ; while the second is 
called discriminate tsolation, because the isolated 
individuals are discriminated or selected from 


The New Darwinism 109 


others by the possession of some special morpho- 
logical character. Discriminate isolation leads to 
progress in the direction of the characters which 
originally caused the isolation. The effect of in- 
discriminate isolation must depend very much on 
two things: (1) the number of individuals isol- 
ated, and (2) their inherent capacity for variation, 
which is known to be very different in different 
species. ‘The more variable the individuals are, 
the greater is the chance of variations arising 
among them ; and the fewer they are, the greater 
is the chance of a variation being preserved. 

In the second place, isolation may appear under 
various forms ; and this leads to the necessity for 
classifying these different forms into groups. In 
treating this part of my subject I must beg your 
forbearance ; for, although classifications are in- 
dispensable if we wish to attain clear ideas, they 
are apt to be a trifle dry ; and I am afraid that I 
may weary you while enumerating them. I could 
give you a general account without entering into 
details ; but you would be left with hazy notions 
on the subject ; and, if you will forgive me when 
it is over, I will get through it as quickly as 
I can. 

I will take first those cases in which isolation is 
alone concerned, and which therefore are indis- 


IIO Darwinism and Lamarckism 


criminate. We can divide them into physical 
isolation and physiological isolation, according to 
the nature of the barrier which isolates the groups 
of individuals. I will then take the cases in which 
isolation is accompanied by selection, and where, 
in consequence, the isolation is discriminate. 
Under this head, we have natural selection, in 
which the selection is involuntary and cannot be 
obviated ; and preferential selection, in which se- 
lection is a voluntary act of the individuals and 
not absolutely necessary. These two kinds of 
selection may be called zuztrinsic, as the individ- 
uals select themselves or form themselves into 
groups for their own pleasure or profit. But 
there is another kind of selection,—analogous to 
the artificial selection by man,—where the indi- 
viduals are selected by an outside selector, who 
forms the groups for zs benefit or amusement, 
and not for the benefit of the selected. This I 
call extrinsic selection. 

It may be, and indeed often is, the case, that 
two or more of these processes may combine. 
Hither physical or physiological isolation may 
preserve variations which are afterwards ex- 
panded by natural selection ; or natural selection 
may modify one part of a plant while extrinsic 
selection is modifying another, 


The New Darwinism her 


Tocommence, then, with PHysicaL ISOLATION. 
This was known, under the name of geographi- 
cal isolation, before the publication of the Orzgzx 
of Species; but the principle has since been ex- 
plored in all directions by Moritz Wagner, Pro- 
fessor Weismann, and the Rev. J. Gulick. It 
arises when a group of individuals is prevented 
from mixing with the rest of the species by some 
physical barrier which they are either unable or 
unwilling to cross ; and it is chiefly due to migra- 
tion, either voluntary, in search of food, or in- 
voluntary, as when plants or animals are driven 
by winds or currents from one place to another. 
Its completeness depends largely upon the power 
of locomotion possessed by the individuals ; for 
two snails would be effectually separated by a 
distance which would appear as nothing to a 
bird. The simplest form of physical isolation is 
when a few individuals cross the sea from the 
mainland to an island, or from one island to an- 
other ; and in time, owing to the appearance of 
some new variation, gradually develop into a new 
species. A few examples will be of interest. 

The oranges of Tahiti have developed into a 
very distinct variety ; the fruit being smooth, 
yellow, and round, and with a different flavour 
from any of the oranges of Australia or Europe. 


112 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


Professor H. C. Bumpus has given us very inter- 
esting evidence of varietal changes which have 
taken place with great rapidity in the United 
States. In a lecture delivered at the Marine Bio- 
logical Laboratory of Wood’s Holl, Massachusetts, 
in 1896, he says that between the years 1850 and 
1870 more than fifteen hundred European sparrows 
were introduced into the United States, and have 
since spread over the continent. On comparing 
a large number of the eggs of these introduced 
sparrows with others from Britain, he finds that 
the American eggs are more variable both in 
shape and colour, and that they have become 
smaller and rounder than British eggs. Unfort- 
unately he could not compare the birds, on 
account of the expense of procuring a sufficient 
number of skins. He has also compared three 
thousand specimens of the shells of the British 
Periwinkle (Lzttorina littorea) with ten thousand 
North American specimens of the same species, 
which was introduced into America only about 
fifty years ago; and he finds that the American 
shells are more elongated, lighter in weight, more 
bulky, and the colour-markings less pronounced 
than in British specimens.’ Professor Bumpus 


1 Zodlogical Bulletin of the Marine Biological Labora- 
tory of Wood’s Holl, vol. i., No. 5. 


The New Darwinism 113 


thinks that these variations are due to the animals 
having been subjected to a new environment, and 
thus emancipated from many of the old restrain- 
ing influences of natural selection. But, however 
this may be, it is certain that these changes would 
not have taken place if the animals had remained 
in Britain ; and whether the variations have or 
have not been produced by external agencies, we 
may fairly say that they are due either directly or 
indirectly to physical isolation ; for in either 
case isolation was necessary for their preserv- 
ation. 

It is evident that, if these changes continue, 
new species will arise. This appears to have 
been the case with the adult insect of the slug- 
worm which infests our pear and cherry trees ; for 
it has been described as a new species (JZonostegia 
antipoda) by Mr. W. F. Kirby, although, no doubt, 
it was introduced from the northern hemisphere. 
There is also ample evidence that specific changes 
have occurred over and over again in the past. 
We need not go beyond New Zealand for ex- 
amples. 

The Crow (Glaucopis) of the North Island has 
its wattles coloured blue, while those of the South 
Island are half blue and half orange. Our Tits 
(Afyjiomeira) have a yellow breast, and those in 


114 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


the North Island a white one. The Thrushes 
(Turnagra) and Robins (A@vo) also differ in the 
two islands. Wecannot suppose that these differ- 
ent species formerly inhabited different districts, 
when the two islands were united, that is, before 
Cook’s Strait was formed ; because part of the 
South Island lies to the north of part of the North 
Island; and if the two islands were again united 
the birds of Nelson and Wellington would cer- 
tainly mix together. Some of these species must 
evidently have been formed since the islands were 
separated, and cannot be due to new external con- 
ditions. If we turn our attention to the Chatham 
Islands, we find that the Bell-bird (Azthornzs), 
the Fern-bird (SAphenwacus), the Warbler (Pseudo- 
gerygone), and the Pigeon (Hemzphaga), all differ 
from their relations in New Zealand. I have not 
time to discuss all these cases, but will take the 
Chatham Island Pigeon asan example. It differs 
from that of New Zealand in having the lower 
part of the back and the outer wing-coverts gray 
instead of purple. We have no reason to suppose 
that these colours are in any way related to the 
environment. We have no reason to suppose 
that the Chatham Island bird could not live 
equally well in New Zealand, or that the New 
Zealand Pigeon would be under any disadvantage 


The New Darwinism 115 


in the Chatham Islands. Consequently, we have 
no reason for thinking that these differences of 
plumage are of any special use to the birds, or 
that they could have been produced by natural 
selection ; and the only explanation appears to be 
that physical isolation has preserved fortuitous 
variations which arose subsequently to the isola- 
tion. 

One of the best examples of the effects of physi- 
cal isolation is found among the Albatrosses. 
There are twelve different kinds of Albatrosses 
which roam over the Southern Ocean, mixing 
freely together ; and nine or ten of these frequent 
the Tasman Sea; but each has its own separate 
breeding-place, to which it retires every year. 
Now, as these birds have no enemy but man, and 
as they all have the same habits, and live on the 
same food, their specific characters cannot be con- 
nected with the struggle for existence. Neither 
can they be due to external conditions ; for all 
live together except at the breeding season. We 
cannot therefore, suppose that each species was 
formed by competition on the ocean, and that 
each subsequently chose a separate breeding- 
ground. Or, in other words, we cannot suppose 
that the development of their specific characters 
preceded their isolation. Evidently isolation pre- 


116 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


ceded and was the cause of the preservation of 
variations which subsequently arose, and in time 
became of specificimportance. It is possible that 
the differences between the species may now be 
useful as recognition-marks ; but if they arose 
‘subsequently to isolation, the birds must at first 
have got on very well without them ; and, if so, 
there is no reason for supposing that recognition- 
marks are wanted now. 

Of course, a very large number of cases could 
be cited where plants and animals have been long 
isolated without undergoing any known change. 
The house-fly and honey-bee, for example, remain 
unchanged in all countries. But this only shows 
that many plants and animals do not change 
readily, and that there have been no variations 
for isolation to preserve. For once more I must 
remind you that isolation does not induce varia- 
tions ; it only preserves them if they arise. It is 
well known that some plants and animals vary 
more than others ; and it is usually the common 
species that vary most. I am of opinion that 
variable species form but a small minority of the 
whole, and that non-variable or slightly variable 
species form the immense majority. If it were 
not so we should not be able to define species so 
easily as we can ; for most species are easily de- 


The New Darwinism 117 


fined, far more easily than genera ; a truth which 
was more widely recognised forty years ago than 
now. . 

Another form of physical isolation is due to 
migration in search of food. This is often accom- 
panied by a change in habits, which keeps a small 
group of individuals together. For example, in 
the southern parts of New Zealand the introduced 
trout (Sa/mo fario) has taken to live in the brack- 
ish water at the mouths of rivers, or even in the 
sea, and has developed into a new variety, unlike 
any in England whence their ancestors came. 
Sometimes a distinctly useful variation may arise; 
and then it would be increased by natural selec- 
tion. And it is, no doubt, to the co-operation of 
natural selection with physical isolation that we 
owe the peculiar colours of animals living in 
deserts ; and, indeed, all cases of protective col- 
ouration may be explained in the same way. 

The change from diurnal to nocturnal habits 
may be considered as another case of physical isol- 
ation, although the two groups are separated 
only as Box was from Cox—one group sleeps 
while the other feeds. Nocturnal habits have 
been assumed as a protection against enemies by 
many very different kinds of animals; but in 
other cases the change has been made in order to 


118 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


secure food. The slow-moving Lemurs, for ex- 
ample, could not catch birds in the daytime ; but 
at night they steal silently along the branches 
and seize them when asleep. The Owls, as a 
group, must in the first instance have become 
isolated by adopting nocturnal habits ; but their 
division into a number of genera and species has 
come later, and is due to other causes. Some of 
the characters which divide them into subordinate 
groups are distinctly adaptations,—such as the 
serrated claw on the middle toe, the operculum 
of the ear, the longer or shorter wings, etc.,—but 
a large number of the lesser characters can have 
no utilitarian value. 

PHYSIOLOGICAL ISOLATION is when certain in- 
dividuals of a species are prevented from inter- 
crossing by physiological causes, although they 
freely mix together during the breeding season. 
The simplest form of it is found in the lowest 
plants and animals which have no sex, but in- 
crease their numbers by self-division. This en- 
sures that each individual is isolated from all 
others ; and consequently any variation that may 
arise will be preserved, unless it is harmful to the 
individual, or is counteracted by reversion. To 
this, no doubt, we owe the original separation of 
plants from animals; as the variations which gave 


The New Darwinism 119 


rise to this separation were useful, they would be 
taken in hand by natural selection, and so would 
become progressive. We may also find in asexual 
reproduction the cause of the immense variety 
seen among the Diatoms, Fungi, Radiolarians, 
and Foraminifera. These variations, some of 
which are the very earliest recorded in the rocks, 
were non-utilitarian, and never progressed far, 
probably because further progress in any direction 
would have been harmful. 

Self-fertilisation is nearly as efficient a cause ; 
but a cross may occasionally occur. Ferns, and 
many other plants, as well as some animals, are 
thus isolated and able to preserve indifferent vari- 
ations. A few years ago Count Berg Sagnitz 
made a large number of observations, with the 
expressed purpose of testing the truth of this de- 
duction ; and he found that self-fertilised plants 
really have more constant varieties than species 
which are cross-fertilised. 

Another kind of physiological isolation is caused 
by a change taking place in the season of flower- 
ing, or in the time of pairing, whereby late and 
early individuals are prevented from crossing. 
There is a good instance of this in the Mutton- 
birds of the Kermadec Islands. These two varie- 
ties of Céstrelata neglecta—the Mutton-bird and 


120. ~=Darwinism and Lamarckism 


the Winter Mutton-bird of the settlers—breed on 
the same island, but at different times of the year. 
The first has the neck and breast, and sometimes 
the whole under surface, grey ; while the Winter 
Mutton-bird has only a grey band on the breast, 
the rest of the under surface being white. Here 
we see physiological isolation bringing about 
much the same result as physical isolation has 
done in the case of the Albatrosses ; and we must 
suppose that the change in the time of pairing 
preceded the change of plumage. | 

It also appears that, even among individuals 
which habitually inter-cross, physiological isola- 
tion may arise by the infertility of certain indi- 
viduals with others. We know, as a matter of 
fact, that almost all species, even those closely 
allied to each other, are physiologically isolated 
by the ban of sterility. We have an excellent 
example of this in our Fan-tail Flycatchers (2/z- 
pidura). ‘The pied and the black Fan-tails are 
two allied species ; the former of which is found 
throughout New Zealand, while the latter is con- 
fined to the south. In the neighbourhood of 
Christchurch we often used to see, when the birds 
were common, individuals of the two species court- 
ing each other ; and Mr. T.. H. Potts has recorded 
several cases of what he called union nests ; but 


The New Darwinism 121 


no one has ever seen a hybrid. Evidently the 
two species are mutually sterile. They are phy- 
siologically isolated from each other. Indeed, in 
nature we constantly find closely allied species, 
or even varieties of the same species, living to- 
gether in intimate association ; and yet hybrids 
and mongrels are most rare, especially among 
animals. Even in cases wheré hybrids and mon- 
grels can, as we know, be produced under arti- 
ficial conditions, they are not so produced under 
natural conditions. 

The prepotency of some pollen-grains over 
others is another well-ascertained fact. It is 
known that if the pollen-grains from a number 
of different plants be placed on the stigma of a 
flower, the stigma will, in most cases, select, with 
unerring accuracy, the pollen of its own species 
or variety, and reject the others. If it were not 
for this, hybrids would be far more abundant in 
the vegetable kingdom than they are. But there 
are exceptions to the rule. In some plants the 
ovules absolutely refuse to be fertilised with pollen 
from the same plant; but can be fertilised by 
pollen from any other individual of the same 
species. There are also very many species which 
are partially sterile with their own pollen ; and 
there is a large number in which pollen from an- 


122 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


other individual or variety is prepotent over the 
plant’s own pollen.’ 

Again, we know as a fact that, among domesti- 
cated animals, different individuals show varia- 
tions in fertility and in the power of transmitting 
their characters to their offspring. Physiological 
variations in the reproductive cells evidently ex- 
ist ; but as we cannot see them, and can only 
recognise them by experimenting, they form a 
very difficult study, and we know very little 
about them. What we do know leads us to sup- 
pose that physiological variations arise, and are 
transmitted in a similar manner to morphological 
variations. There is, however, this important 
difference : varieties which are mutually infertile 
cannot be swamped by inter-crossing ; they pre- 
serve themselves. 

The rarity of hybrids in nature is a most re- 
markable fact ; for it shows us that this character 
of sterility is widely spread; and the question 
arises, How did it originate? Dr. Romanes pro- 
posed an explanatory hypothesis, which he called 
‘* physiological selection,’’ but which is more ap- 
propriately named ‘‘ progressive infertility.’ He 
supposes that certain individuals became to some 
extent infertile with others, although they retain 


1 Cross-and Self-Fertilisation in Plants, 2d edition, p. 2. 


The New Darwinism B23 


complete fertility among themselves; and that 
those individuals which are most fertile among 
themselves tend to become more and more isolated 
from other groups. It is thought that, if a slight 
amount of mutual infertility arose between two 
individuals of a group among which free inter- 
crossing prevailed, the progeny of the less fertile 
pair, being fewer than those of the more fertile 
pairs, would be gradually eliminated in the strug- 
gle for existence, while the descendants of the 
more fertile pairs would become separate groups, 
not perfectly fertile with each other—all crosses 
between the two being eliminated. If, now, the 
same thing happened again among the members 
of one of the groups, another step would be taken; 
until at last we can conceive it possible that two 
or more groups might become completely isolated 
from the others by means of physiological varia- 
tion and the struggle for existence. The small 
families would be crowded out by the members 
of the more prolific families, not because they 
were less adapted to their surroundings, but 
simply by force of numbers. It will be noticed 
that utilitarian characters are not selected, and 
no definite morphological modification is given to 
the survivors. Consequently there is no natural 
selection ; and it is only because the infertile 


124 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


families have fewer offspring that they disappear 
altogether. 

Dr. Wallace has, however, shown that the 
physiological variety could rarely maintain itself 
by this process; and it is more probable that 
variations in infertility easily become definite ; in 
which case mutual sterility might often arise, and 
thus individuals would become physiologically 
separated from each other. It seems possible 
that in this way groups have become isolated, 
although living in the same area; and natural 
selection could then act on any group without 
interfering with the others; and thus divergent 
evolution would follow. ‘That sterility does, by 
some means or other, arise between species, is 
simply a matter of fact ; and the essence of Dr. 
Romanes’s hypothesis is, that he supposes that 
the physiological change precedes the morpho- 
logical, instead of following it, as Darwin had 
thought. Let us now see what evidence can be 
produced in its favour. 

In the first place, it is a fact that the different 
varieties of a species generally breed true, even 
when closely associated together ; and from this 
we infer that the physiological changes which 
have taken place in their constitution are greater 
than the morphological changes. In the second 


The New Darwinism 125 


place, sterility between species is the common 
character of almost all. It is found associated 
with all kinds of structural and colour characters ; 
and yet, in the exceptions to the rule, we see that 
considerable structural and colour differences may 
arise without affecting the fertility of the indi- 
viduals in the least. This seems to imply that 
physiological isolation has almost always come 
first, and that morphological characters follow ; 
that infertility is the common originator of most 
of the species, and that structural alterations in 
different directions came later. 

This inference is strengthened by the fact that 
the hypothesis also offers an explanation of the 
exceptions to the rule ; for those species which 
are not mutually sterile may have been isolated 
by other means than that of progressive infer- 
tility; and therefore there is no reason why they 
should be infertile, unless the morphological 
changes which have since taken place are too 
great. The same explanation applies to our 
domesticated races; for they have not been se- 
lected for infertility, but for form or for some 
other useful character. 

The weak point of this argument is, that the 
explanation seems to go too far ; because we can 
hardly suppose that all sterile species have been 


126 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


isolated by progressive infertility. Darwin says: 
‘‘ Separate regions are often inhabited by groups 
of species, which, when brought together and 
crossed, are found to be more or less sterile, and 
consequently this could not have been effected 
through natural selection,’’ ' or, as we should now 
say, through progressive infertility. This reason- 
ing, however, is not conclusive ; for the ancestors 
of these separated groups must at one time have 
lived together, and the process of progressive in- 
fertility may have then come into operation. 
Still it seems probable that sterility eventually 
arises in most cases of physical isolation ; but ob- 
servations and experiments on the subject are 
much wanted. 

That variations in infertility occur in nature is 
an undoubted fact ; and that complete infertility 
sometimes precedes structural change seems to be 
the case with domesticated animals ; for Darwin 
says : ‘‘ It is by no means rare to find certain males 
and females which will not breed together, al- 
though they are known to be perfectly fertile with 
other males and females.’’* But isolation by pro- 
gressive infertility will not be proved until it has 


1 Animals and Plants under Domestication, 2d ed., 
vol. ii., p. 169. 

2 Animals and Plants under Domestication, 2d ed., 
vol, il., p. 146. ; 


The New Darwinism 127 


been shown by experiment that, among animals 
living in a natural state, infertility exists between 
some individuals of the same species, which will 
retain complete fertility with others. In other 
words, it is necessary to prove by facts the suppos- 
ition that infertility sometimes precedes morpho- 
logical change. 

Of course the new Darwinism does not profess 
to explain the origin of physiological variations 
any more than the origin of morphological varia- 
tions. What Dr. Romanes has done is to call 
attention to these variations, and to point out that 
one of them—variations in fertility—must be a 
very important factor in evolution, as it would 
produce isolated groups in those large areas where 
many individuals of a species are mixed together, 
and where they exist in large numbers. 

Both physical and physiological isolation are 
indiscriminate in their action, and isolate non- 
utilitarian as well as utilitarian variations. If 
the variations are non-utilitarian, they do not go 
far. But if they should be useful or attractive 
variations, they will be seized upon and developed 
by one of the processes of selection which I must 
now describe. 

We will first take NATURAL SELECTION, which 
isolates beneficial variations by killing off the 


128 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


others. It is not so much natural selection as 
natural elimination ; for it works not by the sur- 
vival of the fittest but by the destruction of the 
least fit. It is also a method for the evolution of 
adaptive characters only; because the elimination 
is for the benefit of those who remain, that is, for 
the benefit of the selected ; and its most appro- 
priate name would perhaps be “‘ utilitarian selec- 
tion.’’ It may be a struggle for protection from 
enemies, or it may be a struggle to secure the 
persistence of the species ; butin all cases it must 
be a struggle, with death as the penalty for 
being vanquished, because, without elimination 
by death, there can be no selection and no isola- 
tion : the two here go together. 

Natural selection also includes the greater part 
of Mr. Darwin’s “‘ sexual selection’’; everything 
in it which relates to the combats between males, 
and to the possession of particular structures for 
capturing the females, as well as to the organs or 
colours by means of which an individual of one 
sex makes known its position to those of the other 
sex. In these cases the unsuccessful candidates 
are not necessarily killed, but they are prevented 
from breeding ; which, from our present point of 
view, amounts to the same thing. 

It is, however, only the struggle for food which 


The New Darwinism 129 


is brought about by the rapid increase of the 
members ofa species. The struggle for protection 
and the struggle for perpetuating the species do 
not at all depend upon the doctrine of Malthus. 
On the contrary, the more individuals there are 
of a species, the less the necessity for securing 
special means of protection, and the less is the 
importance of the struggle for existence. But, in 
all cases, the power of natural selection, as a pro- 
cess of evolution, increases as the structures which 
influence the struggle get more perfect, and as 
competition gets keener. Itcan hardly come into 
play in the early stages of a variation, or where 
competition is checked by physical isolation ; but 
it has increased in importance with the age of the 
earth, and is now the dominant factor in the 
evolution of genera and the larger groups among 
animals and plants. 

PREFERENTIAL SELECTION includes the select- 
ive association of Dr. Wallace, and part of the 
sexual selection of Mr. Darwin. By its means, 
groups are formed by individual preferences, due 
to the mutual attraction or aversion felt by some 
individuals for others of the same species. Of 
course we can only expect to find its action 
among the higher animals; and in biology it 
chiefly occurs in the highly nervous and esthetic 

9 


130) Darwinism and Lamarckism 


birds ; it is, however, very influential in human 
affairs. 

Preferential selection differs from natural selec- 
tion in that it is a voluntary act, and that the 
process is one of exclusive mating of the best 
varieties, and not the destruction of the worst. 
Consequently it can give rise to divergent evolu- 
tion without the help of any other form of isola- 
tion. But it resembles natural selection in being 
discriminate ; because the isolation is produced 
by the attractive characters themselves, which 
consequently tend to accumulate. Some of the 
beautiful colour patterns of birds are probably its 
greatest triumphs ; but in the colours of squirrels, 
antelopes, and monkeys we can trace its effects 
among the more prosaic mammals, 

‘Many facts in favour of selective association 
will be found in the second volume of Darwin’s 
Variations of Animals and Plants under Domesti- 
cation, and in his Descent of Man, as also in Dr. 
Wallace’s Darwinism ; to which I can only add 
that all cases of truly gregarious animals, that is, 
of animals which live in flocks all through the 
year, should be included under this head. I will, 
however, give you an illustration of how import- 
ant a tidy dress may be toa bird. Mr. R. Henry, 
the Government Conservator of Native Birds in 


The New Darwinism 131 


the West-coast Sounds, mentions a male Maori- 
hen (Ocydromus brachypterus) which was weak 
and in bad plumage when it first came about his 
hut, and was always thrashed and hunted away 
by one of the female Maori-hens. He fed the poor 
bird up ; and when it had acquired a brand-new 
suit of feathers it actually captivated and paired 
with the very hen that used to hunt it about. 
Indeed, Mr. Henry says that neither males nor 
females have a chance of getting mates while they 
are disfigured by having their feathers pulled out 
when fighting.’ 

There is still another form of isolation to be 
considered, which I have called Ex?Rrinsic 
SELECTION ; for it implies the presence of an 
agent as selector, who is outside the group of in- 
dividuals from whom the selection is to be made. 

This process differs from natural selection in 
that the rejected individuals do not perish, but 
are left alone ; while the selection is made for the 
advantage of the selector, and not for that of the 
selected individuals. Mr. Darwin included it 
under natural selection ; but its mode of action is 
so different that it is entitled to separate recogni- 
tion ; for the process is analogous to that used by 
man in forming the various races of domesticated 


1 Trans., N. Z. Institute, vol. xxx., pp. 279-280. 


132 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


animals and plants. It includes only a few in- 
stances among plants and animals in a natural 
state ; and in every case the selector is an insect. 
For this reason the Rev. G. Henslow has called 
it ‘‘ insect selection ’’; but a term which will also 
include selection by man seems preferable, espe- 
cially as it emphasises the difference between 
these and other methods of selection ; and some 
such term is indispensable when discussing the 
action of selection in human affairs. 

Under this head, then, we have, first, certain 
insects kept by ants. The nests of ants are fre- 
quented by many insects, partly on account of the 
warinth, partly for the food they find in the nests. 
The ants also in some cases gain advantage from 
their visitors, who supply a liquid food which 
they secrete ; and the ants sometimes look after 
the progeny of these visitors as carefully as if they 
were their own. Indeed, several kinds of beetles 
have not culy been domesticated, but have been 
subjected to selection until some have become 
blind, and others are unable to feed themselves. 
These variations are evidently injurious to the 
domesticated animals, but are useful to the ants, 
as they prevent the beetles from running away. 
The sticky secretion of Aphides must also be in- 
jurious, if we may judge by the eagerness with 


The New Darwinism 133 


which they allow ants to remove it ; and we must 
therefore suppose that it also is due in large 
measure to selection by the ants. 

The structural growths which in many flowers 
necessitate the visits of special kinds of insects 
or birds to fertilise them are also probably due 
to extrinsic selection ; for it is very doubtful 
whether they are useful to the plants. No doubt 
the secretion of honey, the bright corolla, as well 
as all the devices by which plants prevent the 
visits of non-flying insects, or by which they en- 
trap small flies, are due to the action of natural 
selection ; for all of them are useful to the plant. 
But it cannot be of any importance to a plant that 
it should be visited only by a particular species 
of humblebee, or that it should be fertilised at 
night and not in the day ; and we know that those 
plants which have the most elaborate apparatuses 
for securing cross-fertilisation by certain insects 
are uniformly rare, and have not, therefore, been 
a success from their own point of view. Also, if 
it be good for a plant to have its flowers fertilised 
by pollen from some other plant, then it is evident 
that the grouping of flowers into heads or spikes 
must be injurious, because it almost ensures that 
the flowers shall be fertilised by pollen from other 
flowers of the same inflorescence ; which Darwin 


134 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


says does little or no good; and yet capitate flowers 
are abundant. 

Indeed, some of the variations which have taken 
place are decidedly injurious to the plant, such as 
the reduction of stigmatic surface in the Orchids, 
the abortion of one half of each anther in Salvia, 
and the asexual condition of the ray-florets in 
some of the Composite, and in the outer florets of 
the Guelder Rose. As a matter of fact, we find 
that in some cases these metamorphosed flowers are 
not sufficient to preserve the species from destruc- 
tion, and have been supplemented by others which 
have special means for self-fertilisation. If cross- 
fertilisation were all that is wanted, the simple 
device of dichogamy—that is, the maturing of 
different parts of a flower at different times— 
would have answered every purpose. 

But it is evident that capitate flowers are useful 
to the insects which visit them ; for that arrange- 
ment enables the insects to collect a large quantity 
of honey, or pollen, with the least amount of 
trouble. And it is also evident that it is very 
advantageous to a humblebee to have a number 
of flowers in which the honey is so locked up that 
only she or her friends can extract it; and we 
may reasonably suppose that insects, finding 
honey sweet, began unconsciously to cultivate 


The New Darwinism 135 


the plants. If a bee found that certain blue 
flowers always had more honey in them than 
yellow or white ones, she would certainly visit 
the blue flowers first. She would not know why 
there was more honey in the blue flowers. She 
would never think that it was due to the difficulty 
other insects found in extracting it; but she would 
always visit them and expect a feast. We may 
readily suppose that each particular bee had her 
favourite plants, which grew in the neighbour- 
hood ; and as she would constantly visit them in 
preference to others it is easy to see how they 
might become isolated. In this way humblebees 
have caused long nectaries to grow, and the lips 
of the snapdragon to shut; while moths have 
caused some flowers to keep closed all day, and so 
reserve their honey, and others to give out scent 
only at night. 

The great number and abundance of plants 
whose inconspicuous gamopetalous flowers show 
that they were formerly visited by insects, al- 
though now fertilised by other means, is a suffi- 
cient proof that they have suffered no harm by 
the cessation of insect visits. They are the 
abandoned ones, thrown on one side when a 
better class of goods offered ; but they have not 
died out nor even suffered any loss. Many 


136 =©6 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


botanists think that these flowers have retro- 
graded since they were abandoned by insects ; 
but there seems no reason why they should retro- 
grade ; and it is at least possible that some of 
them remain as they were, and simply mark the 
stages through which the more advanced flowers 
have passed. 

By these means the most complicated flowers 
can be explained ; for every modification which 
is useful to the plant is due to natural selection ; 
and every modification which is useful to the 
insect-visitors is due to extrinsic selection. 


SUMMARY AND RESULTS 


Now let me sum up briefly the conclusions at 
which we have arrived. 

The new Darwinism, like the old, has nothing 
to do with the origin of variations. It accepts 
them as facts existing in nature, and shows how 
these variations have been preserved, and how 
many of them have gradually developed into 
species, genera, families, and the higher groups. 
Whether variations be definite or indefinite, 
whether they be congenital or post-natal in 
origin, has nothing to do with Darwinism. It 
does not attempt to explain the fundamental 
cause or causes of variation; it only explains, 


The New Darwinism 137 


first, the processes by which individuals become 
isolated, and therefore in a position to preserve 
any variations which may arise ; and, secondly, 
how variations may be accumulated by the pro- 
cess of selection, and how progress in certain 
directions has been secured. 

That part of the old Darwinism known as 
natural selection, although occupying a most im- 
portant part in the new Darwinism—for it is the 
great cause of progress—has been found inade- 
quate to explain all the facts of organic evolution. 
The difficulties which cannot be overcome are 
three : 

1. Useless characters. 

2. Incipient useful characters, and 

3. The origination of divergent evolution. 
These are now explained by isolation. The 
fourth objection—the existence of mutual sterility 
between different species—has been shown to be 
outside Darwinism altogether ; which is a theory 
of the preservation and development of variations, 
and not of their origin. 

It should be remembered that Darwin always 
said that natural selection was not, by itself, a 
sufficient explanation of organic evolution ; and 
he mentioned isolation. But at that time the 
facts of distribution and of infertility were but 


138 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


little known ; for it was not until after the pub- 
lication of the Ovigin of Species that special at- 
tention was directed to these points, and their 
importance recognised. 

It is natural selection, working with other 
forms of isolation, which has brought about the 
main progress of life. It gives a directive or de- 
terminate impulse to living organisms, and by its 
means life has advanced from the lowest Protozoa 
up toman. But, together with this progressive 
or determinate evolution, a large amount of inde- 
terminate or indefinite evolution has been going 
on; and this has been the result of isolation work- 
ing alone. Wemay liken the progress of organic 
evolution to the march of an army, which is con- 
tinually throwing off numerous scouting parties, 
who penetrate into every nook and cranny and 
leave nothing unexplored. The few that find 
roads lead off part of the army after them ; while 
the majority, who fail to do so, perish on their 
tracks, and are heard of no more. Natural selec- 
tion preserves and intensifies adaptations, or util- 
itarian and non-utilitarian characters. Progress 
is due to the former, variety to the latter. 

Now we rarely see a useful character which is 
not shared by many species ; and, consequently, 
is of generic or even of higher value; while a very 


The New Darwinism 139 


large number of specific characters are non-util- 
itarian. If we examine any large order of animals 
—that is, one containing many species—we shall 
find that the ordinal characters, and those of the 
families into which it is divided are of utilitarian 
value. But when we come to the smaller groups, 
the case will be different. A large proportion of 
the genera and almost all the species will be dis- 
tinguished by characters which, so far as we can 
see, are non-utilitarian, and could not, therefore, 
have been developed by natural selection. So it 
appears, after all, that natural selection is not so 
much a theory of the origin of species from varie- 
ties, as one of the origin of genera and the higher 
groups from species. Natural selection picks, as 
it were, here and there one species out of many, 
and makes it the founder of a family. The rest— 
the vast majority—‘‘ have their day and cease to 
be.’’? They vanish altogether from the board, 
without leaving any descendants behind them ; 
although some linger longer than others. 

It is to natural selection, then, that we owe pro- 
gress, and it is chiefly to isolation that we owe 
variety. Without isolation all organic beings 
would have been nearly uniform, and all would 
have belonged to a single type, which would be 
the one best fitted for getting food and for propa- 


140 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


gating its race: half-animal, half-vegetable, and 
a ruthless cannibal. This unhappy result was 
prevented by the first organisms being sexless, 
so that there was no inter-crossing, but each 
could develop independently. It is useful to con- 
template what might have been, for we can then 
realise what the principle of isolation has saved 
us from ; and we can the more readily recognise 
what an important part it has played in nature. 

I must keep you a minute longer while I point 
out where this leads us; for there is more than 
appears upon the surface. 

We are accustomed to say, and I have repeated 
it many times in this lecture, that the characters 
developed by natural selection are utilitarian ; 
that is, they are of use to the creature possessing 
them, while the characters due to isolation are 
for the most part non-utilitarian. Now we may 
at once grant that these latter characters are not, 
and never have been, of any use to their possess- 
ors. But are they of no use at all in the scheme 
of nature? Would man have been the same now 
if these non-utilitarian characters had never ex- 
isted? Certainly not. It isthe variety in nature 
that has excited man’s curiosity, urged on his 
thirst for knowledge, and so induced him to study 
natural phenomena ; while contemplation of the 


The New Darwinism IAI 


beauty seen in nature has stimulated his sluggish 
soul, and has developed his esthetic and religious 
faculties. 

Natural selection has, no doubt, developed that 
part of man’s intellect which makes him cunning 
in devising means to ensnare his prey, and to get 
the better of his fellow man. But this, after all, 
is the form of intellect which man shares with the 
beasts ; while the intellectual and spiritual quali- 
ties which especially distinguish him have not 
been called forth by natural selection. These are 
largely the result of contemplating the variety 
and beauty in nature; and if natural selection 
has played an important part in gradually devel- 
oping the body and mind of man, isolation has 
played a no less important part in developing his 
higher intellectual and spiritual faculties, and in 
teaching him to reverence and adore the Almighty 
Designer and Creator of all we see around us. 

We are quite accustomed now to the idea that 
every structure in a plant or in an animal hasa 
special object; else it would not be there. But it 
is generally supposed that this object must be a 
useful one to its possessor ; for this is the teach- 
ing of the old Darwinism. Now, why should we 
limit ourselves to so narrow a view? We know 
that many structures exist which are not, and 


142 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


never have been, of use to their owner. Is it 
therefore necessary to believe that they are of no 
use at all? If we allow that the ultimate object 
of organic evolution is the development of man, 
not only physically but also mentally and morally, 
I do not see how we can escape from the conclu- 
sion that all these so-called useless structures, all 
that give us beauty and variety, have been spe- 
cially designed for his education. 

Three hundred years ago geologists ney that 
fossils could not have been either simple freaks of 
nature or the outcome of fermentation in the 
rocks—as had been previously supposed—because 
that would imply that the Creator had laid traps 
for man’s intelligence, and had caused him to use 
his intellect for the purpose of leading him astray. 
Thirty years ago the same line of argument was 
used by zoologists with reference to rudimentary 
organs, and to the singular vagaries seen during 
the development of animals. It was urged that 
there must be some reason for these things, and 
that this reason could not have been to deceive 
man. In both cases the argument has been al- 
lowed ; and why should it be disallowed in the 
present case? If beauty and variety fave been a 
fruitful cause in the development of the special 
human characteristics ; if they ave been largely 


The New Darwinism 143 


instrumental in making him a being “‘ of wise dis- 


) 


course, looking before and after,’’ and if, so far 
as we know, they have been of no other use, why 
should we refuse to believe that this was the 
primary object for which they were designed ? 
The only alternative is that man’s higher devel- 
opment has been due to a lucky chance, and that 
evolution has no meaning. 

‘This, then, it seems to me, is the ultimate teach- 
ing of the new Darwinism ; and I think you will 
all agree that we owe it a deep debt of gratitude 
for lifting us out of the deadly region of utilitar- 
ianism into an altogether higher and purer air. 
But we must always remember that we could not 
have attained our present position if we had not 
had the old Darwinism to climb with. 


LECTURE III 
DARWINISM IN HUMAN AFFAIRS 


HE principle of selection, so important to the 
animal and vegetable kingdoms, plays also 
a very important part in human affairs ; indeed it 
is universally present wherever there is competi- 
tion. Weselect our dinners, we select our clothes, 
we select our books, we select our amusements ; 
here it is not the inanimate objects which are com- 
peting, but their human producers. The one 
thing essential for the action of selection is com- 
petition ; the one thing essential for selection to 
be cumulative is that the variations be capable of 
transmission to other individuals. 


PHYSIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION 


The enunciation of the principle of selection is 
simple. Itis that, among two or more competing 
individuals, the worst adapted to the circum- 

144 


Darwinism in Human Affairs 145 


stances will be the first to succumb. This, you 
will say, sounds like a truism—and so no doubt 
it is—but, combined with the laws of inheritance 
and variation, it has brought about most import- 
ant results. Now, it is necessary at the outset to 
get a clear idea of what selection can do, and 
what it cannot do; for this is a point very com- 
monly misunderstood ; and incorrect ideas on the 
subject have made some people reject the principle 
altogether. 

If there are a number of competing individuals, 
differing slightly from each other, and if 


No compound of this earthly ball 
Is like another all in all, 


then the principle of selection will, to a large ex- 
tent, determine which of those individuals shall 
live to propagate its kind, and which shall die 
out. But selection has no power if the individuals 
are not competing; and it is in no way concerned 
with the origin of the differences ; the differences 
must be there before selection can act. Those 
individuals which are best adapted to the circum- 
stances will generally survive ; and, by the law 
of inheritance, the chances are in favour of the 
offspring inheriting the difference that caused 
their parents to survive. If we take a sufficiently 


Io 


146 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


large number of cases, the probability of inherit- 
ing this difference becomes a certainty. If, now, 
these offspring again differ among themselves in 
the same way their parents differed, selection will 
again pick out those in which the difference—or 
variation, as it is usually called—is most favour- 
able ; and these selected individuals will, in their 
turn, hand the variation down to their offspring 
in a better form than they originally received it. 
Selection, therefore, in combination with inherit- 
ance and variation, is cumulative in its action ; 
but it is important to notice that it is cumulative 
only by selecting the best varieties of each gener- 
ation ; it is in no way a cause of the variations 
themselves. 

An example will perhaps make my meaning 
clearer. ‘T'ake the evolution of theeye. Suppose 
that, in a number of eyeless animals, the nerve 
of some portion of the skin of one of them was 
slightly sensitive to light. This one, being able 
to distinguish day from night, would have an ad- 
vantage over other individuals in escaping its 
enemies, and thereby it will be one of those that 
survive, on the principle of selection ; and in the 
next generation there will be, by the law of in- 
heritance, several individuals endowed with this 
same power of distinguishing day from night. 


Darwinism in Human Affairs 147 


These, in their turn, will survive ; and at last all 
the individuals of the species will have the same 
faculty. ‘This will be the result of selection ; but 
selection did not make the nerves of the first indi- 
viduals sensitive to light ; and it is powerless to 
improve the nerves of the offspring ; what it can 
do is to bring all the individuals up to the level 
of the best. If, however, an improved variety 
appears, the improvement is at once made perman- 
ent, and diffused through the species by the 
action of selection ; but selection itself, iT repeat, 
cannot originate nor improve. 

How variations arise we are profoundly ignor- 
ant. ‘To suppose, with the late G. H. Lewes and 
Dr. Roux, that there is an intercellular struggle 
going on in the tissues, and consequently an in- 
tercellular selection that causes variations in the 
organs, is merely to shift the difficulty one step 
backward, and by no means to explain the cause 
of the variations. ‘To say, as some do, that varia- 
tions arise by chance is only another way of 
saying we cannot explain them. To say that 
no two individuals, or no two cells, are exposed 
to exactly the same conditions, and that, there- 
fore, variations must arise—or, in other words, 
that all variations are caused directly by exter- 
nal conditions—is to draw an inference of which 


148 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


there is no proof, and one that is apparently 
contradicted by a large array of facts of different 
kinds. No doubt, external agencies have some 
direct effect in producing individual variation ; 
but it is doubtful whether these variations are 
ever transmitted ; and in almost every case it is 
impossible to feel sure that a variation, supposed 
to be due to direct external action, is not in reality 
due to crossing. It would be more than rash, it 
would be foolish, to assert that we can never 
know more than we do now on the subject ; but 
we may safely say that at present we know next 
to nothing. When we try to investigate the 
cause, or causes, of variability, we are confronted 
with nothing but difficulties, and we have no firm 
ground from which to meet them. But, starting 
from the ascertained fact, that numberless varia- 
tions are constantly arising, we can explain by 
the principle of selection how these variations ac- 
cumulate in different directions, until in time the 
most diverse organisms are produced. 

It is well known that in countries like Europe, 
long settled by civilised man, the total number 
of individual animals remains about the same, 
although many are born each year. Evidently 
this is due to the fact that the district is only 
capable of furnishing food for a certain number ; 


Darwinism in Human Affairs 149 


and when that number is reached no further in- 
crease can take place. It follows from this, that 
in each year as many individuals must die as are 
born ; and as most animals and plants produce 
annually more than two young, it also follows 
that during each year the number of individuals 
that must perish is greater than the number that 
can survive. As therefore the supply of food is 
limited, there must always be a severe competition 
for existence ; a struggle to survive at the ex- 
pense of neighbours. ‘The individuals that die 
will usually be those that are least adapted for 
living—either for procuring food, or for escaping 
enemies. Useful variations will tend to increase, 
and succeeding generations will diverge more and 
more from the original stock. This is due to 
what is called natural selection. 

But there is another mode of selection, which 
also causes each succeeding generation to diverge 
more and more from the original stock. This is 
best seen in the artificial selection by man of the 
plants and animals he has domesticated. Arti- 
ficial selection may be either methodical, as when 
a man endeavours, by breeding from chosen indi- 
viduals, to modify a breed according to some pre- 
determined standard ; or it may be unmethodical, 
as when the owner of a flock simply kills off the 


150 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


worst or wildest individuals, without any thought 
of altering the breed. Unmethodical artificial 
selection is not confined to human actions, but is 
also found among plants and animals. The 
difference between natural and artificial selection 
must be clearly comprehended ; for, as we shall 
see, both are important factors in the study of 
politics. Natural selection is a selection taking 
place, as it were, by and among the individuals 
themselves ; it is an internal principle, and may 
be called zztrinsic selection. Artificial selection, 
on the other hand, is an arbitrary selection from 
outside, and may be called extrinsic selection. ‘The 
great variety we find among wild flowers is due 
to both forms of selection combined—the intrinsic 
selection among the plants themselves, and the 
extrinsic selection of the insects that fertilise them. 
In garden flowers we see the result of methodical 
extrinsic selection by man. 

Another point, very important for you to notice, 
is that the principle of selection does not neces- 
sarily lead to improvement. If we consider a 
limited district, such as an island, it is plain that 
in course of time, if the conditions of life remain 
constant, an almost exact equilibrium between the 
different plants and animals inhabiting it will 
be attained. The principle of natural selection, 


Darwinism in Human Affairs 151 


always acting in the direction of perfect, mutual 
adaptation, will in time bring this about; and 
then, as no further modifications would be bene- 
ficial, none will be preserved—the organisms will 
remain stationary. But this stationary character, 
you must observe, only obtains while the condi- 
tions of life remain the same; if any change 
takes place, the adaptations can no longer be per- 
fect, and further modifications will be beneficial. 
If the change is such that the conditions of life 
become harder, then the organisms must become 
more specialised ; they must, as we call it, pro- 
gress. But if, on the other hand, the change is 
such that the conditions of life become easier, the 
effect will be just the opposite—the organs will 
become more generalised, and the organisms will 
degenerate. I will illustrate this by an example. 
Suppose an island to be inhabited by hares, which 
are preyed upon by sheep-dogs, and that an 
equilibrium in speed has been arrived at, by 
which both maintain their relative numbers. If, 
now, greyhounds are introduced, it is evident that 
the conditions of life with regard to the hares will 
be harder ; and, as only the fleetest will escape, 
all the hares on the island, in the course of some 
generations, will become fleeter—that is, more 
specialised. But suppose that, instead of grey- 


152. Darwinism and Lamarckism 


hounds having been introduced, all the sheep- 
dogs were removed, so that there were no dogs at 
all on the island, it is evident that the conditions 
of life would now be easier ; the fleet would have 
no advantage over the slow ; and the whole race 
would, to some extent, lose their special charac- 
teristic of swiftness—they would degenerate. 


PSYCHICAL EVOLUTION 


Under different circumstances, sometimes phy- 
sical structure, sometimes mental characteristics, 
may have the greater importance. Sometimes 
the cunning of the fox, sometimes the speed of 
the antelope, may be more advantageous. 

Among animals physical structure is usually of 
more importance than superior mental powers ; 
but in human societies mental capacity gets more 
and more powerful as civilisation advances ; and 
we must therefore be prepared, when passing | 
from the lower animals to man, to find the prin- 
ciple of selection considerably modified. The 
principle remains the same, and its action remains 
the same ; but with man it acts chiefiy in another 
sphere—the sphere of mind. An additional com- 
plication also arises. Among the lower animals 
selection only acts through utility; that is, 
through those conditions which tend to the phy- 


Darwinism in Human Affairs 153 


sical well-being of the individual. But man is 
essentially gregarious, held together by the bond 
of sympathy; sympathy is as necessary to him as 
utility ; and consequently selection will act as 
powerfully through the one agent as through the 
other. By the action of selection through utility, 
intelligence has been raised into intellect ; by the 
action of selection through sympathy with our 
fellow men, the moral sense has been developed, 
and ethical systems formed ; through our sym- 
pathy with nature, imagination has given birth 
to art; and our esthetic faculties have been 
evolved through the necessity for amusement, 
caused by the restless activity of the human 
brain. Let me explain very briefly how the more 
important of these things have come about. 
Hither from transmission, or from early associ- 
ation, every man has a number of opinions, com- 
mon to the nation and to the class in life to which 
he belongs, which we may call inherited opin- 
ions; for, if not actually inherited, they are 
formed at so early a period of life that for our 
present purpose they may be considered as in- 
herited. But, as his reasoning powers develop, 
these opinions are subject to variation. The 
variations may be owing to original ideas arising 
in his mind we know not how, like the variations 


154. Darwinism and Lamarckism 


of structure in animals; or they may be due to 
education, that is, to coming into contact with 
other minds, either personally or through books ; 
and it must be noticed that, unlike structural 
variations, these mental variations may be pro- 
duced at any time in a man’s life, and may or 
may not remain constant. Physical transmission 
is not necessary ; mental transmission from mind 
to mind diffuses a variation rapidly through all 
the individuals; and consequently it is not neces- 
sary for the action of selection that the originator 
of an improved mental variation should have any 
bodily offspring, or should be healthy and strong. 

When mental variations compete with one an- 
other, selection constantly acts on them through 
the agency either of utility or of sympathy. 
When some member of a tribe, who was more 
ingenious than the rest, invented or improved a 
weapon or a snare, he would be imitated by the 
whole tribe. The tribe that contained the most 
ingenious men would have better means of obtain- 
ing food and of defending itself; it would there- 
fore increase more rapidly than others, and the 
intellectual faculties of the dominant tribes would 
gradually improve by competition. ‘The love of 
praise and the dread of blame would be developed 
by the power of sympathy. The members of a 


Darwinism in Human Affairs 155 


tribe would unite in praising conduct which 
seemed to be lucky or for the general good, and 
in blaming that which seemed to be unlucky or 
evil.’ A man who sacrificed himself for the good 
of his tribe would excite by his example the wish 
for glory in others; and glory would in time ripen 
into the idea of duty. With expanding intellect, 
and greater experience, other and higher virtues, 
such as temperance and veracity, would become 
esteemed ; and by the action of selection they 
would be more and more practised, and so the 
moral faculties would also gradually improve. 
The principle of selection, we must remember, 
is everywhere present ; we cannot escape from its 
action. Just as each particle of matter is con- 
stantly under the sway of gravitation, so each 
thought, as soon as it has left the brain of the 
thinker, comes under the sway of selection. Fort- 
unately most thoughts are smothered at once ; 
but a few, which are adapted to the surroundings, 
spread far and wide, become dominant, and bend 
the variable minds of men to them. ‘The opin- 
ions that spread must be adapted to the spirit of 
the times ; but it does not follow that they are 
necessarily progressive ; it is unhappily true that 
retrogressive opinions have frequently become 


1 Darwin. 


156 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


dominant ; but, in the long run, if competition 
continue, and sufficient time be allowed, we may 
expect that progressive opinions will prevail. 
Carlyle truly remarks that “‘ everything goes by 
wager of battle in this world; strength, well 
understood, is the measure of all worth. Givea 
thing time ; if it can succeed it is a right thing.”’ 


SELECTION IN POLITICS 


In politics we have the principle of selection 
personified in the government which selects one 
set of opinions and makes it rule over the others ; 
and this gives us the key to the science of politics. 
I will explain. Montesquieu divided all govern- 
ments into (1) Republics, in which the whole or 
a part of the people have the supreme power ; (2) 
Monarchies, in which a single person governs by 
fixed and established laws ; and (3) Despotisms, 
in which a single person directs everything ac- 
cording to his own will and caprice. This classi- 
fication is crude; but it will serve my present 
purpose. In a democratic republic, with a free 
press and universal suffrage, we have the type of 
government by intrinsic selection ; everyone may 
freely express his opinion ; and that set of opin- 
ions which can secure the greatest number of ad- 
herents winstheday. Inan hereditary despotism, 


Darwinism in Human Affairs 157 


where, owing to accident of birth, one individual 
has power to force his private opinions on the rest 
of the nation, we have the type of government by 
extrinsic selection. Between the two are many 
intermediate forms—the aristocratic republic, the 
limited monarchy, the absolute monarchy, and 
the elective despotism, in numberless variety. 
Now we learn from biology that two things are 
necessary for securing the continued existence of 
a group of animals: one is strength to resist ene- 
mies ; the other, flexibility of organisation,—the 
power of adaptation to changing circumstances. 
I use the word strength in a wide sense ; there is 
strength in isolation, as well as in combination ; 
and there is strength in insignificance. If a 
tribe of lions were to invade a country the mice 
would not suffer much, but the deer and oxen 
might be exterminated. But strength alone is 
not sufficient ; flexibility of organisation is per- 
haps even more important. If, when the con- 
ditions of existence are changing, a group of 
animals has an organisation so inflexible as to be 
incapable’ of variation—and animals are very 
differently constituted in this respect—it will 
necessarily be supplanted by some other group 
of a more yielding nature ; and the same holds 
true with nations ; but here the changes in the 


158 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


conditions of existence are to a large extent 
mental. If mere strength were all that was re- 
quired for the preservation of a nation, then 
autocratic government would be the best, for 
government by discussion is not favourable for 
conducting war; but strength alone will not 
suffice—a flexible organisation, as Burke taught 
long ago, is equally necessary for duration of life. 

How, then, is a nation to secure a flexible con- 
stitution ? Evidently by adopting some form of 
government by intrinsic selection, which can re- 
spond readily to any change in national feeling. 
A despot, no matter how benevolent his intentions 
_ may be, has no sufficient means of finding out the 
wishes of the people over whom he rules ; for how 
could he ‘‘ expose himself to feel what wretches 
feel’’ ?* and if he could ascertain their wishes 
he would have great difficulty in carrying them 
into effect, as he must always rule through an 
army, which might not like the changes. Unless 
intrinsic selection is thoroughly carried out, there 
must always be the danger of the governing body 
misunderstanding the desires of the majority. In 
Sir G. C. Lewis’s Dialogue on the Best Form of 
Government, Aristocraticus is made to say : ‘‘ The 
Corn Laws were part of a policy which was estab- 


King Lear. 


Darwinism in Human Affairs 159 


lished on patriotic grounds, and which was at one 
time sincerely believed, even by enlightened men, 
to be beneficial to the entire community.’’ Demo- 
craticus ought to have answered: “‘ In this case, 
as in many others, the ‘ignorant many’ have 
proved wiser than the ‘ enlightened few.’’’ Des- 
potism may succeed very well for a time ; and is 
indeed indispensable in the earlier and more war- 
like stages of human society ; but when the con- 
ditions of existence change, all despotisms, being 
unable to accommodate themselves to the changes, 
must sooner or later succumb, either to internal 
or external pressure: they will pass away, and 
will be known only as political fossils of strange 
and uncouth form. And what is true of nations 
is true of all human institutions and organisations 
—a flexible constitution is necessary for continued 
existence. 

Man must always have been a social animal ; 
and his most powerful desires in early times would 
be the preservation of the common property of the 
tribe, and the spoliation of neighbouring tribes. 
To accomplish this the members of a tribe must 
work together ; obedience is of the highest value ; 
quarrelsome tribes could not cohere ; every indi- 
vidual must work for the same end ; the tribe is 
an army, and a chief would be naturally selected 


160 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


by consent of the majority. No division of power 
could be allowed ; the chief must not have one 
opinion, the priest another; the priest and the 
chief must be one.’ In time the desire for private 
property would arise ; this would produce custom 
within the tribe ; custom would develop into law; 
and this again would give rise to the desire for 
individual liberty of action. But while it was 
war @ outrance, this desire must be suppressed on 
pain of extermination ; for liberty of action is not 
compatible with military superiority. Under 
these circumstances a despotism is the best form 
of government ; variations in opinion are danger- 
ous and must be stamped out. ‘The main virtues 
are courage, strength, and obedience ; but these 
would nourish the moral qualities of truthfulness, 
mercy, and self-denial. As the desire for accumul- 
ating wealth grew stronger, the rising spirit of 
industry, and consequent increasing dislike to a 
military life, would favour the formation of a 
standing army for the maintenance of the power 
of the despot ; and the tribe, now swollen to a 
nation, would become locked in an inflexible rule. 

But in certain favoured places, where tribes 
were isolated, and consequently where protection 
against other tribes was not of such paramount 

1 Bagehot. 


Darwinism in Human Affairs 161 


importance, the desire for personal liberty would 
increase more rapidly ; despotism would be en- 
feebled, or perhaps would never arise ; and the 
government would be carried on by discussion. 
These naturally protected districts might be back- 
ward in the art of war; but they would contain 
the germs of a principle destined to overthrow 
despotism and ensure the progress of mankind. 
Nations inhabiting rich, warm countries which 
produced abundance of food would be envied by 
their neighbours ; and consequently they could 
never afford to give up despotism ; for if they did 
so they would certainly be conquered by foreign 
nations whose customs they abhorred. But na- 
tions living in the bleak north, on land of which 
no one wished to deprive them, would develop 
government by discussion ; the struggle for life 
against unkindly nature would strengthen the 
body, and government by discussion would in- 
vigorate the intellect. In warmer climates man 
gets physically and mentally enervated ; and liv- 
ing under a despotism he becomes intellectually 
listless. So the northern nations would be con- 
stantly breaking in upon the southern nations, 
sometimes even conquering them, changing, per- 
haps, under the new conditions to despotisms, 
and then themselves degenerating. On the other 


It 


162 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


hand, the better organisation for war given by 
despotism, and the greater population of the rich 
countries might sometimes enable the southern 
nations to overrun for a time the northern ones ; 
and so numerous complications would arise, not 
by chance, but by the operation of divine laws. 

It follows from these considerations that, by the 
principle of selection, an isolated nation will de- 
velop government by discussion ; but if, either by 
the approach of other nations or by improvements 
in the means of communication, the isolation 
should cease, the nation will either become itself 
a despotism, or it may be conquered by a despot- 
ism. In all despotisms extrinsic selection will 
check or destroy variation ; and just as an ani- 
mal with an unyielding organisation remains un- 
progressive and always liable to extinction when 
the conditions of existence change, so a despotic 
state may advance to a certain point, and must 
then remain stationary ; while a nation with a 
representative government will be highly variable; 
and will continue to progress if it remains un- 
conquered. 

Such is an outline of a theory of politics as de- 
duced from the principle of selection. Turgot 
was perhaps the first to demonstrate that history 
is not a series of cycles, but a single continuous 


Darwinism in Human Affairs 163 


progression ; and if Hume had known the prin- 
ciple of selection, he would, I think, have founded 
a science of politics; history would have been 
clear to him, instead of being, to use his own ex- 
pression, ‘‘an inscrutable enigma.’’ But it is to 
the late Mr. Walter Bagehot that we owe the 
enunciation of the fertile principle, that discussion 
is to ideas what the struggle for existence is to 
corporeal entities; and that the best ideas are 
naturally selected under a government by discus- 
sion: you will find it ably developed in his Physics 
and Politics... It is not my place to apply this 
theory to the facts of history. I merely bring it 
forward to show you how politics and political 
history can be explained by the principle of selec- 
tion. No doubt the evolution of society by means 
of this principle has always been going on ; but it 
has been going on unconsciously ; we are now 
conscious of it, and hope, by the introduction of 
methodical intrinsic selection, hitherto unknown, 
to direct its movements. We stand at the turn- 
ing-point of a long series of ages ; for just as man 
is distinguished from the lower animals by the 
possession of self-consciousness, so are the times 
before us to be distinguished from the times gone 
past. A new light has fallen upon us; and that 


1 International Scientific Series, vol. ii, 


164 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


light has come from the study of biology. ‘‘I 
question,’’ says Professor Jevons, “‘ whether any 
scientific works which have appeared since the 
Principia of Newton, are comparable in import- 
ance with those of Darwin and Spencer, revolu- 
tionising as they do all our views of the origin of 
bodily, mental, moral, and social phenomena.”’ ’ 
And Mr. Leslie Stephen also says: ‘‘ Mr. Darwin’s 
observations upon breeds of pigeons have had a 
reaction upon the structure of Kuropean society.’’ ” 
As the atomic theory could never have been ar- 
rived at by a study of the complicated organic 
molecule, neither could a knowledge of the prin- 
ciple of selection have been arrived at by a study 
of the complicated phenomena of sociology ; it 
was in biology alone that it could be detected ; 
and it is to biology that we must turn for the 
proofs of its power. 


THE SOCIAL ORGANISM THEORY 


But there is another theory of sociology which 
I must not pass over, as it also is supposed to be 
founded on biological data. The curious analogy 
that undoubtedly exists between a state—or social 
1 Principles of Science. 


* Fitstory of English Thought in the Eighteenth Cent- 
uUry. 


Darwinism in Human Affairs 165 


organism, as it has been called—and an animal, 
or individual organism, has been commented on 
by many writers ever since the days of Plato and 
Aristotle. The tissues of which an animal is built 
up are composed of cells, or units of organisation ; 
and these units of organisation are supposed to 
represent the individuals which compose the state 
or nation. As the cells constantly die and are as 
constantly replaced, so do the individual human 
beings, while the nation liveson. A nation ex- 
hibits the phenomena of growth, structure, and 
function, like those of an individual body'; and 
in development both pass through changes which 
are not permanent. ‘The governing or controlling 
power is supposed to represent the nervous sys- 
tem ; the trading or distributing body to represent 
the vascular system ; andsoon. On the strength 
of this analogy many inferences have been drawn. 
The heart has been likened to the metropolis ; 
and an overgrown metropolis is therefore said to 
be a disease. Because all parts of the body obey 
the mandates of the brain, imperialism, or at any 
rate centralisation, has been advocated as the 
best form of government. As individuals have a 
limited period of existence, so also must it be with 
nations. This is the leading idea of Vico’s 
1 Herbert Spencer. 


166 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


Scienza Nuova, and we see it again in Lord 
Macaulay’s celebrated New Zealander sitting on 
the ruins of London Bridge. 

But the analogy is incomplete and misleading. 
Human beings are not so different from one an- 
other as are the various cells of which one of the 
higher animals is built up; and nothing can make 
them so different. In these animals each cell can 
only play its own part ; but we know from ex- 
perience that in a community a man can pass 
from a working member to be a controlling mem- 
ber, and often acts as efficiently as if he had 
always been a controlling member. Sancho 
Panza truly says: “‘ As to governing well, the 
main point, in my mind, is to make a good be- 
ginning ; and, that being done, who knows but 
that by the time I have been fifteen days.a gov- 
ernor, my fingers may get so nimble in the office 
that they will tickle it off better than the drudgery 
I was bred to in the field.’? Indeed, it would not 
be difficult to find in this analogy as many dis- 
crepancies as likenesses. What, for instance, in 
the organisation of an animal, answers to the pro- 
fessions of theology, medicine, or law? What to 
prisons and reformatories? How is it that, in 
the individual, one cell does not try to usurp the 
functions of another cell? How is it that one 


Darwinism in Human Affairs 167 


organ is never of opinon that another organ has 
too much power? How is it that one cell does 
not loaf on the industry of others, but each does 
its own work honestly? It is of no use to say 
that the social organism is young, and that all 
these things will disappear in time ; because then 
we should have to compare the social organism 
of to-day with an individual lower in the scale 
than any now existing; and all the beautiful 
analogies of nerves and vessels would disappear. 
The fallacy of this analogy, as a guide to political 
science, is indeed so apparent, when we compare 
a highly differentiated nation like India with the 
much less differentiated one of the United States 
of America, that I am surprised it should have 
been adopted by the writer of an article on the 
‘“ Science of History ’’ in the Westminster Review 
for January, 1881. This writer proceeds to in- 


(¢ 


vestigate what he calls the ‘‘ physiology of his- 


tory’’ under numerous heads, in which he thinks 


c¢ 


he has dissected and examined a “‘ social organ- 


) 


ism ’’ as a biologist would dissect and examine an 
animal; but, in my opinion, he has only given 
new names to old things, and has not advanced 
our knowledge. 

The term “‘ social organism ’’ is not, in fact, a 


happy one, because it is misleading. What is 


168 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


meant to be understood by this term is, not so 
much a single organism, as a number of groups 
of organisms each group occupying a separate 
locality, and differing from one of the organs that 
make up an individual in that it is more or less 
self-supporting and capable of forming a new 
‘“ social organism.’’ ‘The social groups, or com- 
munities, as I should prefer to call them, more 
nearly resemble what we call species ; while the 
nation, which may consist of one or more com- 
munities, might represent the political genus, 
and might include extinct as well as existing 
communities. For example, the various com- 
munities of England in the fifteenth century may 
be said to be extinct, and to be represented by 
the communities of England, the United States, 
and the Colonies at the present day. It is the 
business of the science of history to explain why 
those communities became extinct, and how the 
present ones were developed ; and asa help to- 
wards a scientific solution of the problem I may 
point out that the action of selection on each in- 
dividual, through his external physical surround- 
ings, is the chief determinant of the character of 
the community; whether, for instance, it shall be 
commercial, agricultural, pastoral, or manufac- 
turing ; as was dimly seen by Montesquieu and 


Darwinism in Human Affairs 169 


Buckle. ‘The action of selection on society at 
large determines the course of politics and the 
spread of religious opinions. National character 
is due to both, together with the inherited effects 
of selection on former generations. 


IS A SCIENCE OF HISTORY POSSIBLE? 


But, you may say, some of the best historians 
have denied the possibility of a science of history. 
That is true; but those historians have not 
studied biology ; and without a knowledge of 
biology it is impossible to construct a science of 
history. Let us examine these objections. Mr. 
Freeman says that there can be no science of his- 
tory, because we cannot be sure of our data. No 
doubt the evidence on which history rests is often 
confused and contradictory, and has sometimes 
been intentionally falsified ; but the main facts 
are certain enough. And are not the facts often 
confused and contradictory in natural science? 
Have we not even falsifications in nature? ‘The 
resemblance of a whale to a fish deceived even 
the great Linnzeus ; and the resemblance of the 
eye of the cuttlefish to that of a vertebrate has 
misled later naturalists. ‘The inversion of strata 
has often misled geologists ; and all the phenom- 
ena of mimetic resemblances are in a sense falsi- 


170. =) Darwinism and Lamarckism 


fications. Intentional deception may be more 
difficult to detect; but if it had not been possible 
to detect forgeries we should not know that any 
had been committed. That the science of history 
is difficult will be allowed; but that does not 
make it impossible. 

Mr. Froude believes that there can be no science 
of history, because human beings have free will. 
He says: ‘‘ When natural causes are liable to be 
set aside and neutralised by what is called volli- 
tion, the word science is out of place.’’ But in 
all sciences one cause may be neutralised by an- 
other; and volition is, as we have seen, the cause 
of mental variations, without which selection 
could not act. A science of history can exist 
without a knowledge of the origin of ideas; al- 
though, of course, without that knowledge it will 
be incomplete. This, indeed, was pointed out by 
Kant a hundred years ago, although he could 
not explain it. ‘‘ Whatsoever difference,’’ he 
says, ‘‘ there may be in our notions of freedom of 
the will, metaphysically considered, it is evident 
that the manifestations of that will, viz., human 
actions, are as much under the control of universal 
laws of nature as any other physical phenomena.”’ * 
We might as well say that there can be no science 


1 [dea of Universal History, translated by De Quincey. 


Darwinism in Human Affairs 171 


of biology because structural variation obeys no 
known law. No doubt it makes prediction very 
difficult, or even impossible, except in a general 
way; but it does not follow that there is no science 
of biology. The idea that the power of prediction 
is essential to a science was originated by Comte, 
as a corollary from a positive philosophy ; and it 
has been widely accepted by unscientific men 
without much consideration. But if this be 
taken as a test, science will be reduced to those 
portions of astronomy and physics which are 
capable of being treated deductively by mathe- 
matical analysis. The astronomer cannot predict 
the appearance of comets; the physicist cannot 
predict the rate of expansion by heat of an untried 
substance; the chemist cannot predict the proper- 
ties of a new compound; the geologist cannot 
predict the future physical geography of the earth; 
but, as Mr. J. S. Mill says, ‘‘ We must remember 
that a degree of knowledge, far short of the power 
of prediction, is often of much practical value. 
There may be great power of influencing phe- 
nomena, with a very imperfect knowledge of the 
causes by which they are in any given instance 
determined. It is enough that we know that 
certain means have a tendency to produce a cer- 
tain effect, and that others have a tendency to 


172. Darwinism and Lamarckism 


frustrate it.’’’ Ifthis is the amount of knowledge 
required to form a science, then certainly there is 
a science of history. 

Much as I admire Professor Jevons’s Principles 
of Science, I must object to this one sentence— 
‘A science of history, in the true sense of the 
term, is an absurd notion.’’ I object to it, be- 
cause by many people it will be taken to imply 
that a science of history is impossible. Such, 
however, is not, I think, the meaning of Pro- 
fessor Jevons ; because he continues as follows: 
‘“ A nation is not a mere sum of individuals whom 
we can treat by the method of averages ; it is an 
organic whole, held together by ties of infinite 
complexity. Each individual acts and reacts upon 
his own smaller or greater circle of friends ; and 
those who acquire a public position exert an influ- 
ence on much larger sections of the nation. There 
will always be a few great leaders of exceptional 
genius or opportunities, the unaccountable phases 
of whose opinions and inclinations sway the whole 
body, even when they are least aware of it. From 
time to time arise critical positions, battles, deli- 
cate negotiations, internal disturbances, in which 
the slightest incidents may profoundly change the 
course of history. A rainy day may hinder a 

1 System of Logic. 


Darwinism in Human Affairs 173 


forced march, and change the course of a cam- 
paign; a few injudicious words in a despatch may 
irritate the national pride. ‘The accidental dis- 
charge of a gun may precipitate a collision, the 
effect of which may last for centuries. It is said 
that the history of Europe at one moment de- 
pended upon the question whether the lookout- 
man on Nelson’s vessel would or would not descry 
a ship of Napoleon’s expedition to Egypt, which 
was passing not far off. In human affairs, then 
the smallest effects may produce the greatest 
results ; and in such circumstances the real ap- 
plication of scientific methods is out of the ques- 
tion.”’ 

I have given this long quotation, because I 
wish you to have the case fairly put before you. 
From it I gather that Professor Jevons’s words 
are directed against the application to history of 
the doctrine of averages as advocated by Buckle ; 
and he means, I think, that human affairs are too 
complicated to allow of results being often pre- 
dicted ; but this, as I have already said, is very 
different from denying the possibility of a science 
of history. If I throw a glass bottle on the 
ground, I can safely predict that it will be broken; 
but, notwithstanding the perfection of the science 
of mechanics, no man can predict into how many 


174 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


pieces it will be broken. And the same with his- 
tory : we may safely predict that the Turk will 
not rule long in Europe, although it is impossible 
to predict in detail the events which will turn 
him out. Asa case of a verified prediction in his- 
tory, I may remind you that, at the commence- 
ment of the campaign of 1806 between France and 
Prussia, Jomini predicted that a decisive battle 
would be fought in the neighbourhood of Jena ; 
and he was right. No biologist would deny that 
great results may proceed from small causes, but 
all would certainly object to the deduction that 
therefore ‘‘ a science of biology in the true sense 
of the term is an absurd notion.’’ ‘This discussion 
is, I hope, sufficient to show that, although the 
science of history is exceedingly difficult and com- 
plicated, it differs only in degree, not in kind, 
from the other inductive sciences. It is not 
necessary that it should be able to predict what is 
going to take place, but only to explain what has 
taken place. 

You ask, Why am I so interested in a science 
of history ? What have I to do with it? I 
answer: History is a part of sociology, and 
sociology is but a branch of biology. It is the 
natural history of man, and must be approached 
through the study of biology. That sociology is 


Darwinism in Human Affairs 175 


dependent on biology was first definitely sug- 
gested by Auguste Comte ; but he wrote before 
the principal laws of biology had been discovered ; 
he thought that the idea of continuous progress 
was peculiar to sociology ; and consequently he 
failed to see the true connection between the two. 
It is to Mr. Herbert Spencer that we are indebted 
for making this connection clear. He has shown 
that a preliminary study of biology is essential 
to the student of sociology, ‘‘ partly as familiaris- 
ing the mind with the cardinal idea of continu- 
ity, complexity, and contingency of causation in 
clearer and more various ways than do other con- 
crete sciences, and partly as familiarising the mind 
with the cardinal idea of fructifying causation 
(z. e., cumulative action), which the other con- 
crete sciences do not present at all,’’?’ but which 
is common to biology and sociology. He points 
out that “‘ the human being is at once the terminal 
problem of biology and the initial factor of socio- 
logy.’’ Asman is modifiable by surrounding con- 
ditions, it is necessary that the sociologist should 
acquaint himself with the laws of modification to 
which organised beings in general conform ; and 
he concludes by saying that ‘‘ the effect to be 
looked for from the study of biology is that of 
1 Study of Sociology, International Scientific Series. 


176 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


giving strength and clearness to convictions 
otherwise feeble and vague.”’ 


With ethical evolution Darwinism comes to an 
end. ‘The process is now carried on by the higher 
stages of religious development, in which compet- 
ition and selection have no place ; for in heaven 
there are many mansions and room for all. 


LECTURE IV 
THE NEW LAMARCKISM 


on AMARCK ascribed some of the evolution- 

ary changes of structure to changes in 
the environment, some to the motions of organic 
beings, and others to both combined.’?' ‘This 
theory was developed with great skill by Mr. 
Herbert Spencer, in his Principles of Biology 
(1865); and he must be considered as the founder 
of the school of Neo-Lamarckians, whose doc- 
trines have been, during the last thirty years, . 
ably advocated by several of the leading natural- 
ists in the United States of America, among whom 
the late Professor EK. D. Cope took a conspicuous 
place. The Neo-Lamarckians do not deny the 
efficacy of the Darwinian principle of selection ; 
but they give it a subordinate place, and rely 
chiefly on the Lamarckian theory of evolutionary 


1 Prof. E. D. Cope in Primary Factors of Organic 
Evolution (1896), p. 518. 


177 


178 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


changes just mentioned. Itis their laudable wish 
to have a complete theory of organic evolution ; 
but we must remember that Lamarckism only 
claims to explain variation, and leaves untouched 
the problem of transmission of characters. So 
that, even if true, it no more goes to the root of 
things than does Darwinism, and leaves us very 
little more advanced than before. Nevertheless, 
we should be thankful for any advance, so long 
as it is a sure one, and founded on a careful ex- 
amination of all sides of the question. But, 
although the Neo-Lamarckians have shown a 
great deal of ingenuity in framing explanations of 
the working of their theory, they have done little 
or nothing towards verifying it. Indeed, Pro- 
fessor Cope, in the preface to his Primary Factors 
of Organic Evolution, candidly acknowledges that 
his book is ‘‘ constructive and not destructive ’’; 
by which he appears to mean that he has brought 
forward all the facts he knows that assist to 
build up his theory, and has left out all those 
which tend to destroy it. I therefore propose 
to examine the evidence advanced by the Neo- 
Lamarckians, and to try to find out what re- 
liance can be placed upon it, so as to ascertain 
what place, if any, Lamarck’s theory has in bio- 
logical evolution. But before doing this it will 


The New Lamarckism 179 


be necessary to make some general observations 
which will clear the way, and, I hope, prevent 
obscurities in the argument. 

That their physical surroundings must have 
some effect on plants and animals is obvious. 
Different foods furnish different substances, which 
must give rise to different chemical reactions 
in different organisms. ‘Temperature, light, and 
moisture necessarily affect these chemical changes, 
and so affect the functions of the organs; and 
these changes in function may sometimes change 
the form of organs, especially by encouraging or 
checking growth. Also it is obvious that there 
are internal physiological forces—due to inherit- 
ance—in all living organisms, which tend to 
counteract the physical forces, so that the latter 
can never have their full effect. These are the 
common property of all theories of evolution ; but 
we cannot use them as a safe foundation for de- 
ductive reasoning until we can explain the phe- 
nomena of growth and inheritance. 

So far as we can see at present, variation must 
be due either to the action of the environment 
on the adult, or to the mixture of ancestral char- 
acters in the germ-cell (amphimixis) *; and the 
difference between Lamarckism and Weismannism 


1The following classification of the different kinds of 


180 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


is that the former assumes that the action of the 
environment is direct and more potent than the 
admixture of germs; while the latter assumes that 
the action of the environment is comparatively 
small, and acts indirectly through the reproductive 
cells.’ Direct action of the environment is more 
powerful,and rapidly produces perceptible changes 
in parts of the body, giving rise to what are called 
acquired characters, while indirect action is slight ; 
it makes no outward show, but influences the re- 
productive cells, and thus becomes congenital ; 
but it is only through numerous repetitions that 
any obvious result is brought about. However, 


variations may assist the reader in getting clear ideas on 
the subject : 

1. Blastogenesis (Weismann), The variation origin- 
ates in the germ-cells, giving rise to congenital 
characters. ; 

(a) by amphimixis, or sexual union ; or 
(6) by the indirect action of the environment on the 
germ-cells, 

2. Somatogenesis (Weismann). The variation origin- 
ates in the body (soma), and is transmitted to 
the germ-cells, giving rise to acquired char- 
acters. 

(a) by Kinetogenesis (Cope), or use-inheritance ; or 
(5) by Physiogenesis (Cope), or direct action of the 
environment on the organism. 

1 At first Weismann thought that the environment acted 

on the protozoa only, but he afterwards modified that 
view. 


The New Lamarckism 181 


there is no real difference between the two ; for 
acquired characters may also affect the reproduc- 
tive cells ; and indeed they must do so before they 
can be transmitted. Hence all transmissible 
varieties must be congenital. 

Many external forces are simultaneously in 
action; and it is probable that they would not in- 
fluence all the individuals alike. Usually some 
one force would exert a greater influence on one 
individual, and another on another ; when these 
influences reached the germ cells they would 
come into connection with numerous ancestral 
influences ; and the result might be very different 
in different individuals. Occasionally some force, 
or set of forces, might be more potent than the 
others, and cause many individuals to vary in the 
same direction. In the first case we should have 
indefinite, in the second, definite variation ; but 
I have already explained (Introduction, pp. 8-11) 
that there is no essential difference between 
them ; and that indefinite often pass into definite 
variations. 

Most variations take symmetrical relations on 
each side of the body ; but this is due to the un- 
known laws of symmetrical growth, either serial 
or bilateral, and it is a necessary part of the or- 
ganisation of the animal. As Weismann says: 


182 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


‘““The evolution of the species of Dezlephila 
shows that the evolution of the marking follows 
throughout a certain law ; that it proceeds in all 
species in the same manner. All the species 
seem to steer towards the same point ; and this 
gives the impression that there is an internal 
law of evolution, which, like an impelling force, 
determines the future phyletic modification of the 
species.’’ 

We see much the same thing in dreams. Some- 
thing which has lately fixed the attention gets 
mixed up in our brain with ancient memories ; 
but the mixture is not incoherent, even during 
sleep. The results are generally absurd or im- 
possible ; but they are not incoherent. There is 
a method in the wildest dreams. ‘The ideas are 
correlated by some unconscious working of the 
brain; so that dreams, like variations, seem to be 
more or less definite. 

Lamarck assumed that the action of external 
conditions was direct and definite from the first, 
and that the variations so produced were capable 
of being transmitted to future generations ; and 
it is these two points that the Neo-Lamarckians 
try touphold. In my examination of them I will 
follow the classification and nomenclature of Pro- 
fessor Cope, who divides the causes of variation 


The New Lamarckism 183 


into two groups, which he calls Physiogenesis and 
Kinetogenesis respectively. In the former the 
modifications are due to physico-chemical causes, 
in the latter they are due to mechanical causes. 


PHYSIOGENESIS 


There is no a prior? reason for supposing that 
variations caused by physiogenesis must be use- 
ful, for they are brought about by physical or 
chemical forces, quite beyond the control of the 
organism; and the future of variations so brought 
about must depend upon the action of natural 
selection. In kinetogenesis, however,—which is 
the chief distinguishing point of Lamarck’s 
theory,—we have an explanation of adaptation, 
and therefore a competitor with natural selection. 
But before an organ can be used it must be there, 
and mechanical stimulus cannot possibly originate 
a new secretion ; consequently kinetogenesis— 
like natural selection—cannot be a cause of new 
variations, but can only increase them in certain 
directions. Lamarckians, therefore, must fall 
back on physiogenesis as the originator of all 
variations, and can use kinetogenesis as a de- 
veloper only ; and until the Neo-Lamarckians 
can explain how variations are produced by phy- 
siogenesis, their theory is no more complete than 


184 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


Darwinism. I need hardly say that this ex- 
planation is not yet forthcoming. 

Animals are constantly changing their environ- 
ments, and at the same time they are constantly 
varying, so that the two must often occur to- 
gether. But it does not follow that the first is 
the cause of the second. fost hoc, ergo propter 
hoc is not a safe method of reasoning. To test it 
we must look for other evidence. 


Experimental Evidence 


First we have the well-known experiments on 
the change of colours in butterflies, caused by 
keeping the chrysalids at different temperatures. 
There are also the changes of colour in birds, 
caused by feeding them on different foods; the 
changes of colour in flatfish when exposed to the 
light ; and the change of one species of the Phyl- 
lopod crustacean (Artemia salina) into another, 
by regulating the amount of salt in the water ; 
and even its change into another genus (Branchi- 
pus), by gradually making the water fresh. At 
the same time it must be remembered that, in the 
vast majority of cases, we are quite unable to 
bring about any variation by changing the ex- 
ternal conditions. 

Of the examples quoted, the changes of colour 


The New Lamarckism 185 


due to changes of food or of temperature are no 
doubt purely chemical, although we cannot at 
present follow them; and the development by 
light of coloured spots on the under surface of 
flatfish belongs to the same category. The 
change from Artemia salina into A. milhausenit 
is very remarkable; but it is not difficult to 
imagine that an excess of salt in the water might 
prevent the growth of hairs. The change, how- 
ever, of Artemia into Branchipus is most extra- 
ordinary ; for the latter genus, in addition to 
other characters, has an additional abdominal 
segment. How the absence or presence of salt 
in the water could determine the presence of an 
abdominal segment is incomprehensible ; and it 
would be as well if Schmankewitsch’s observa- 
tions were confirmed by careful experiment ; for 
there seems to be no reason why the ova of 
Branchipus should not have been introduced with 
the fresh water which killed Artemia. 

The relation between the size of some mollusca 
and their environment, observed by Dr. K. Sem- 
per, is probably due to the effects of confinement 
on their nutrition or respiration; and it can 
hardly be called variation in its proper sense. 
At any rate, it is not the development of any- 
thing new. 


186 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


The remarkable colour-changes which take 
place in chrysalids, by which they assimilate 
their colour to that of their surroundings, is 
generally brought forward as a case of the direct 
action of the environment. In one sense this is 
true; but the result is not an acquired colour 
which may be handed down to another genera- 
tion, as its whole importance lies in its being 
transitory and not transmitted ; for the colour of 
one chrysalis would not do for all its descendants. 
The capacity for changing colour is not due to 
the direct action of the environment, but has 
been gradually brought about by natural selec- 
tion ; for this change of colour only takes place 
once, and cannot be reversed. We can imagine 
that in the skin of the caterpillar or chrysalis there 
are a number of molecules, capable of being com- 
bined into different chemical compounds by the 
action of light, and that the nature of the com- 
bination will depend on the rapidity of the light 
vibrations ; and that the colour of the resulting 
compound will resemble that of the surface which 
reflected the light. But this delicate apparatus 
must have been very slowly produced ; and, as 
it is useful, we cannot doubt that it has been 
developed by natural selection. 

Experiments with plants have given such con- 


The New Lamarckism 187 


tradictory results in the hands of different experi- 
menters, that they prove nothing’ ; and we must 
see whether a better case can be made from the 
observational evidence. 


Observational Evidence 


The action of climate is especially observable 
in plants; and many characters have been at- 
tributed to the direct action of a dry climate— 
such as spines, a hairy epidermis, coriaceous 
leaves, succulent leaves, large roots, bulbs, tubers, 


etc.? 


But many of these, perhaps all, can be also 
explained by natural selection, and furnish, there- 
fore, unsatisfactory evidence. However, it is al- 
lowed that the direct action of climate does cause 
changes in individual plants ; the only doubt is 
whether these acquired characters can be trans- 
mitted. I shall presently adduce the case of 
Veronica lycopodioides as favourable to this view. 
Thickening of the fur may possibly be caused 
by the greater health of some animals in cold 
climates ; and this appears to have been rapidly 
accomplished by the Tasmanian opossum, turned 
out in the south of New Zealand. ‘The loss of 


1See Weismann on Heredity, English edition, Essay 
vii. 

>See the discussion by Dr. Wallace and the Rev. G, 
Henslow in Watural Science, vol. v. 


188 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


hair by dogs in hot countries is certainly due to 
ill-health. 

On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence 
to show that variation may take place without 
any change in the environment, and therefore 
that it may have some other cause. I have 
already mentioned the Albatrosses, the Mutton- 
birds of the Kermadec Islands, and some land 
birds of New Zealand (see ante, pp. 115-119) ; and 
I will only give as another instance the ancient 
order of Trilobites. These animals fed on mud 
at the bottom of the sea, where they must have 
experienced very little change in their physical 
condition ; yet they varied a great deal. 

We also learn from paleontology that some 
species change, while others, living with them, 
remain constant. For example, the Ammonites 
were a very variable group ; but the genera Phyl- 
loceros and Lytoceros remained almost unchanged 
from the Triassic period to the Cretaceous, al- 
though they lived with the others. We cannot 
explain this on the supposition that variation is 
entirely due to change in physical conditions. 

In the land Planarian-worms we find that the 
lower surface is flatter than in the marine forms ; 
and we might attribute this to the difference in 
environment, if it were not for the fact that no 


The New Lamarckism 189 


such change has taken place in the land-leeches, 
nor in the land Nemertean-worms, which live 
with the land Planarians. 

When fishes first made good their footing on 
land, it was by help of the air-bladder, which 
changed intoalung. But since then the climb- 
ing perch (4zabas) has become an air-breather, 
not by means of its air-bladder but by a series of 
folded plates in a special cavity about the gills. 
In the land-crabs (Gecarcinus) the gills are small, 
and the greater part of the bronchial cavity is 
filled with air ; while the cocoanut-crab (Bzrgus), 
which belongs to another sub-order, has a special 
air-cavity, above the gills, which is lined with a 
lung. Now, if the physical action of the air is 
the cause of these structures, how is it that it has 
acted differently in different cases? If it pro- 
duced a lung in the Amphibians and in Airgus, 
why did it not dosoin Anabas and Gecarcinus ? 
It seems more probable that these different organs 
were due to the natural selection of indefinite 
variations, and not to the direct action of the air. 

While, therefore, we must allow that the direct 
action of external conditions has some effect, we 
find very little evidence in its favour. The a 
priori reasoning seems excellent until we apply 
it in detail, and then it fails us. ‘There is, how- 


190 ~=3)Ss- Darwinism and Lamarckism 


ever, ample evidence to show that variation is, to 
a large extent, independent of external agencies, 
and depends upon constitutional organisation. 
Evidently variation is the result of very compli- 
cated conditions, and is not to be explained by 
one overmastering principle. It must be the re- 
sultant of several forces which are nearly equally 
balanced. 


KINETOGENESIS 


Variations due to the movements of animals are 
here included ; and I have already pointed out 
that it is a theory of the development of pre- 
existing variations only, and not one of their 
origin. Consequently the name kinetogenesis is 
incorrect and misleading, and Mr. Ball’s term, 


>> 1 


‘* use-inheritance,’’ * is more appropriate. 

The effect of use on a muscle (hypertrophy) is 
known to everyone ; and the result is no doubt 
due partly to excess of nourishment and partly to 
the induced state of the nerves ; but this does not 
give characters of specific importance. Extra 
nourishment, or even mechanical stimulus, may 
increase the secreting power of cells ; and so the 


shape of growing bones may be affected; but it is 


1 The Effects of Use and Disuse, by W. P. Ball (1890), 
D223: 


The New Lamarckism Ig] 


hard to see how kinetogenesis can apply to the 
joints of insects, which do not grow. Professor 
Cope, however, says that ‘‘ all the form characters 
of the vertebrate skeleton, and, for that matter, 
of the hard parts of all animals, have been pro- 
duced by muscular pressures and contractions, 
and the friction, strains, and impacts due to 
these.’?* But he makes no attempt to explain 
the development of the defensive armour of 
turtles and many other animals ; nor is it possible 
to explain by kinetogenesis the curious elongated, 
strap-shaped roots of the mandibular teeth of the 
goose-beak whale (Wesoplodon layardi). ‘These 
are vestigial teeth, the roots of which, in this 
particular species, grow to so great a length that 
they impede the opening of the mouth, and ap- 
pear to have no use. Also, according to Sir 
Samuel Baker, the African elephant invariably 
uses one tusk in preference to the other’; but 
this has produced no difference in size, except 
that the working tusk is smaller by wear. If it 
be objected that the law of symmetrical growth 
would prevent one tusk from growing more than 
the other, then we must also reject kinetogenesis 


1 Primary Factors of Organic Evolution, p. 467. 
2 The Nile Tributaries of Abyssinia, p.361; and Albert 
Nyanza, p. 172. 


192 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


as the explanation of the single tusk of the Nar- 
whal, and of asymmetry in the skulls of the 
sperm-whale and the flounder. 

To come now to the examples brought forward 
by the Neo-Lamarckians, the origin of the shelly 
plaits on the columella of some Gastropods has 
been attributed to kinetogenesis. But these can 
hardly have been caused, as asserted, by the 
dragging of the wrinkled mantle in and out of 
the aperture, because they are more simply ex- 
plained as being due to secretion of shelly matter 
going on after the mantle was withdrawn, and 
therefore in a wrinkled condition—the plaits be- 
ing formed in the wrinkles. It is true that the 
shape and ornamentation of shells depends largely 
on the shape of the mantle of the animal; and if 
this is what is meant by kinetogenesis, we must 
all agree toit. But then the important question 
arises, What shaped the mantle? 

The spiral form of the shell in many Gastropods 
and Cephalopods has been attributed to the weight 
of the shell making it incline to one side. But 
the spiral form is seen in some of the earliest 
pelagic Gastropods as a delicate horny shell, the 
specific gravity of which could not have exceeded 
by much that of the tissues of the animal. It is 
a fact that the spiral form preceded the deposition 


The New Lamarckism 193 


of carbonate of lime ; and it seems probable that 
this form proved to be less exposed to damage 
than the elongated tube which preceded it. 
Again, an attempt has been made to explain the 
impressed zone on the inner side of the whorls of 
some nautiloid shells as being due to the pressure 
of the outer whorl as it grew round the inner one. 
Professor Hyatt says: ‘‘ That this tendency (to- 
wards closer coiling) is quite capable of producing 
the impressed zone can hardly be denied with 
any show of reason, since the characters tend 
to disappear in proportion as the pressure is 
relieved.’”?’ It is no doubt true that the im- 
pressed zone is caused by close coiling; but I 
cannot see how pressure could have anything to 
do with it. When a sponge grows round a piece 
of rock, is the shape of its under surface due to 
pressure? An inherited tendency to grow ina 
coil which is too close for the expanding diameter 
of the shell would necessitate one whorl growing 
over another ; and if this inherited tendency was 
overcome, and the animal straightened, there 
would be no longer this necessity for growing 
over the last whorl. There is no reason to sup- 
pose that any pressure was exerted by the mantle; 
for there was always free space in other directions; 


1 Quoted by Cope, /. ¢., p. 415. 
13 


194. Darwinism and Lamarckism 


and, of course, as the shell is deposited by the 
mantle, it could not cause pressure by itself. 

The Neo-Lamarckians seem to think that, when 
any structure is shown to be a necessary portion 
of some apparatus, it must in some way, which 
they do not explain, have been developed by the 
movements of the animal. For example, Dr. R. 
T. Jackson says that the single adductor muscle, 
which is found in the embryo-stage of many bi- 
valve molluscs, ‘‘ does not seem homologous with 
any muscle in other classes of molluscs, and is 
probably developed from the mantle-muscles as a 
consequence of the conditions of the case.’?’ Many 
other instances could be quoted; but it would 
be useless to do so, as they all have the same de- 
fect—they assume as true the very point they 
wish to prove. 

Another curious example of reasoning is given 
by Professor J. T. Cunningham, in the Introduc- 
tion to his translation of EKimer’s Organic Evolu- 
tion (1890). He proposes the tongue of the 
woodpecker as a test case between the Neo- 
Lamarckians and the Neo-Darwinians. He be- 
gins by saying that it is admitted by Weismann’s 
adherents that the size and shape of bones and 
muscles are, in the individual, modified by the 


' Quoted by Cope, /. ¢c., p. 262. The italics are mine, 


The New Lamarckism 195 


use which is made of them ; and they will prob- 
ably admit that the modification is such as to 
facilitate the operations in which they are used. 
The Neo-Lamarckians, he continues, believe that 
these modifications were inherited in some de- 
gree, and so accumulated in a succession of gen- 
erations ; while the Neo-Darwinians deny that 
the use-modifications are inherited, but assume 
that another set of modifications, of the same 
kind, arose by congenital variation ; and that the 
individuals that had these survived. This, he 
concludes, is very much like saying that the /Zad 
and Odyssey were not written by Homer, but by 
another man of the same name, who lived at the 
same time. But the fallacy of Professor Cunning- 
ham’s reasoning is obvious. No adherent of 
Weismann, and no Neo-Darwinian would admit 
that the protruding of the tongue in the wood- 
pecker could elongate the hyoid bones ; nor could 
it make the tongue horny and pointed, nor could 
it make it barbed at the end. ‘To suppose that 
the use of an organ will have some effect on it is 
very different from assuming that it will com- 
pletely alter some structures, and even originate 
new ones in connection with it. As I have 
already mentioned, the use of an organ cannot 
possibly originate anything new. If the elonga- 


196 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


tion of the tongue and the barbs at the end are 
due to the action of protrusion, why have not the 
tongues of the Nuthatch (Sz¢/a) and of the Tree- 
Creeper (Cevthia) become elongated? And why 
has that of the Wryneck (Yuzx) been elongated 
but not barbed ? Also, why should the Ant-eater 
(Myrmecophaga) and the Australian Echidna have 
developed a long snout, instead of, like the Wood- 
peckers, curling the withdrawn tongue behind the 
skull? If these long snouts are the direct result 
of protruding the tongue, why has the same cause 
had such different effects in different animals ? 

I think that Mr. W. H. Dall takes up a more 
logical position when he says, speaking of the 
hinge in bivalve shells, ‘‘ Nature, through nat- 
ural selection and physical stresses, has devel- 
oped these cardinal processes which we know as 
teeta 

But it is from the vertebrate skeleton that the 
Neo-Lamarckians take most of their examples. 
It is known that when joints in living animals are 
disarticulated, new surfaces are formed ; bone is 
deposited, and cartilage replaces the periosteum. 
Bone is deposited under the stimulus of moderate 
intermittent irritation; while under prolonged 


1 American Journal of Science, vol. xxxvili. (1889), p. 
542. 


The New Lamarckism 197 


pressure it is removed. From these facts it is in- 
ferred that the vertebrate skeleton can be ex- 
plained on mechanical principles. Professor Cope 
points out that the tongue-and-groove ankle-joint 
is found in nine different groups of the mammalia ; 
and he says that “‘ from the preceding facts I have 
inferred that in biologic evolution, as in ordinary 
mechanics, zdentical causes produce identical re- 
sults.’’* Nodoubt this ought to be true, if the skel- 
eton is due to mechanical forces; but when we pro- 
ceed to test its truth we find that Professor Cope’s 
argument breaks down, and that he has selected 
his facts from those which he considers favourable 
to his hypothesis, and has omitted all others. 
Compare, for example, the wing in a Prevedactyl, 
a bat, and a bird. Here we find three totally 
different structures performing the same function. 
The Pterodactyl has only one finger elongated, 
the bat has four fingers elongated, while the bird 
has none ; yet all, according to the Lamarckians, 
have been produced by the same cause ; and we 
get the nonsensical inference that identical causes 
produce different results. Also, in both the bat 
and the /revodactyl the wing membrane must 
have preceded the peculiar movements of flying, 
and could not have been caused by them, as the 


17. ¢., p. 361. The italics are mine. 


198 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


Lamarckians suppose ; for no animal would flap 
its fore limbs without any reason. 

Professor Cope also says that the length of the 
legs of terrestrial mammals has increased with 
time, and that this is apparently due to use. In 
the majority it is increase of length in the foot, 
but in the Plantigrades it is in the femur or tibia. 
‘“We can trace these to special uses,’’ he says. 
‘Those which receive the principal impact in 
progression are those which increase in length’’; 
but the carpal and tarsal bones do not elongate 
like the others under the same stimulus, because 
of their phylogeny. In those Ungulates which 
live on hard, dry land, the outer toes have been 
reduced, because they do not receive so many im- 
pacts as the central ones. 

But if the legs of Ruminants have been length- 
ened by impact-stimulus, due to running over 
hard ground, how are we to account for the long 
legs of wading birds, of the Heron and the Stilt- 
plover (Aimantopus), which only alight on soft, 
swampy ground? AndI might also ask the Neo- 
Lamarckians to explain the long toes of the Jacana 
(Parra), which walks over floating leaves. 

Again, compare the laboured flight of the 
Tropic-bird (Phaéton) with the graceful move- 
ments of the Frigate-bird (Zachypetes). I suppose 


The New Lamarckism 199 


that the former flaps its wings at least six times 
to one movement of the wings of the latter ; and 
both birds fly all day long, and for most days of 
the year. Here we have a great contrast in the 
amount of work done by the joints and muscles 
of the wings; and yet no difference has been 
brought about in the shape of the glenoid cavity, 
nor in the head of the humerus. And in spite of 
the more rapid movements in the Tropic-bird, its 
wing-feathers are shorter than those of the Frigate- 
bird ; so that, if more nourishment has been sent 
to them, it has had no effect. A similar compar- 
ison could be made between the Shear-waters 
(Puffinus) and the Oceanic Petrels (@strelata), 
and with the same results. 

We shall find another simple set of conditions 
in the vertebral column ; and we have in it an 
excellent illustration of the independent origin 
of similar structures. For in the earlier forms of 
Elasmobranchit, Crossopterygtt, Actinopterygii, and 
Amphibia, the backbone consists of the notochord 
only, but in the later forms of each group we find 
it broken up into ossified vertebrae. These verte- 
bree must therefore, in each case, have originated 
independently. 

It is easy to see that a hard, bony attachment 
for the muscles would be better than the softer 


200 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


sheath of the notochord ; but in fishes, which use 
their bodies and tails in swimming, the hard, bony 
rod must have many flexible joints. Conse- 
quently, if ossification took place at all, vertebrze 
must be the result, or the fish would die. How- 
ever, we have in the Lampreys, the Sturgeons, 
the Holocephat, and the DLzpnoz, living fishes with 
notochords only ; so it is evident that the devel- 
opment of vertebree is not a necessity caused by 
the movements of the animals ; and therefore the 
independent development of bony vertebree in four 
different groups of animals cannot be taken as a 
proof that they were necessarily developed by 
mechanical movements. On the contrary, as the 
thoracic bony vertebree develop in the young be- 
fore the caudal vertebree, we infer that the cal- 
careous deposits first began in that region where 
the movement was least. Given a tendency in 
some individuals to deposit lime-salts outside the 
notochord, we can see how natural selection might 
preserve those varieties which showed the best 
segmentation, as well as those which deposit no 
lime at all. But kinetogenesis requires that the 
deposition as well as the disposition of lime-salts 
should be caused by the movements of the noto- 
chord, and gives no explanation why, of two 
notochords with approximately equal movements, 


The New Lamarckism 201 


one should form long vertebree and the other 
should not do so. 

Passing now to the shape of the centra of the 
vertebrze, Professor Cope says : ‘‘ There can be no 
doubt but that the ball-and-socket vertebral ar- 
ticulation has been produced by constant flexures 
of the column in all directions, as has been sug- 
gested by Marsh.’’" And Professor Marsh says 
that the saddle-shaped articulation in the vertebree 
of birds has been caused by vertical movement ; 
his reason for this opinion being that the third 
cervical vertebra in J/chthyornis is of an inter- 
mediate form between the cup- and the saddle- 
shaped vertebra. Such a “‘ modification of the 
vertebree,’’ he says, ‘‘ would naturally appear first 
where the neck had most motion, viz. : in the 
anterior cervicals, and gradually would be ex- 
tended down the neck, and on to the sacrum, if 
the same flexure were continued.’’ ? 

But if we test this hypothesis by Professor 
Cope’s rule—that the same mechanical cause must 
always produce the same effect—we find it to fail; 
for fishes have not developed a vertebral centrum 
adapted for lateral movements, although they 
always move their tails laterally and never verti- 


1 Primary Factors of Organic Evolutiou, p. 304. 
2 Odontornithes, p. 181 (1880). 


202 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


cally. Also cetaceans have not developed saddle- 
shaped centra, although the movement of their 
tails is more strictly vertical and far more vigor- 
ous than the movement in the necks of birds. 
Again, why should crocodiles have developed 
ball-and-socket articulations in their dorsal verte- 
bree, while the Dinosaurians did not do so? 
Certainly this could not have been due to greater 
movement in the crocodiles. 

Again, the lengthening of the neck is some- 
times, as in the swan, due to an increase in the 
number of vertebree ; while in other cases, as in 
the giraffe, the number of vertebrz is not in- 
creased, but each one is greatly elongated. How 
could the same mechanical cause have brought 
about such different results ? | 

There is a close resemblance between the fish- 
like body of the Dolphin and that of the /chthyo- 
saurus. Both have the same elongated head and 
short neck, so admirably adapted for rapid move- 
ment through the water. But we cannot suppose 
that the head has been elongated and the neck 
shortened by the same process of holding them 
steady ; for the same mechanical cause could not 
have produced opposite effects. 

These examples are sufficient to show that an im- 
partial application of Professor Cope’s rule lands 


The New Lamarckism 203 


him in a multitude of difficulties ; and I will now 
give an example of another class of cases, which at 
first sight seem to prove kinetogenesis, but which, 
on closer examination, are found to be capable of 
other explanations, and therefore are not con- 
clusive. 

The asymmetry in the skull of the half-lop 
rabbit was adduced by Mr. Darwin as evidence 
of change in form due to different stresses on each 
side of the head ' ; and this explanation certainly 
appears plausible. But the asymmetry of the 
skull may be the cause of the difference in the 
ears; or it may be that both ears and skull are 
due to the same cause, viz., a failure in symmetri- 
cal growth, which was taken advantage of by the 
breeder, and fixed by artificial selection. ‘The 
last seems to me the most probable hypothesis of 
the three; for if the asymmetrical skull was 
caused by asymmetry in the ears we still have to 
look to a failure in the law of symmetrical growth 
to account for the ears. And if, in any case, we 
must assume that a failure in the law of symmetri- 
cal growth was the original cause, there seems no 
reason why the failure should not have applied to 
both ears and skull simultaneously. 


1 Animals and Plants under Domestication, 2d edition, 
vol, i., p. 124. 


204. Darwinism and Lamarckism 


There is, however, one case in which kineto- 
genesis seems to be the best explanation of the 
facts. 

The asymmetrical skull of the flatfish, with the 
two eyes on one side, seems to be due to efforts 
made by the young animal to twist the lower eye 
upwards when it lies on its side.’ The upper side 
with the eyes differs in different genera—it is the 
right side in the Sole (So/ea), and the left side in 
the Turbot (Rhombus). Generally it is the same 
in every species of a genus ; but, with the Floun- 
ders (Pleuronectes), although the eyes are gener- 
ally on the right side, they are sometimes found 
on the left ; and this is the case with different in- 
dividuals of the same species ; so that the only 
thing constant is the asymmetry of the skull. 
Darwin says: ‘‘ Schiodte believes, in opposition to 
some other naturalists, that the Pleurvonectide are 
not quite symmetrical, even in the embryo, and, 
if this be so, we could understand how it is that 
certain species, whilst young, habitually fall over 
and rest on the left side, and other species on the 
right side.’’ Dr. Wallace, however, explains this 
as due to natural selection. Hesays that ‘‘ those 
individuals who had this faculty [of twisting the 


1 Darwin, Origin of Species, 6th edition, p. 186. Wal- 
lace, Darwinism, 2d edition, p. 129. 


The New Lamarckism 205 


eye] in the greatest degree were among those that 
survived,’’ and that ‘‘it is not the change pro- 
duced by the effort that is inherited, but the 
favourable constitution which renders extreme 
effort unnecessary, and causes its possessors to 
survive, while those less favourably constituted, 
and who have therefore to use greater effort, suc- 
cumb.’’’ ‘This explanation is not satisfactory to 
me, because, if it were true, Pleuronectes ought to 
have its blind side always the same. ‘The fact 
that it is not so seems to show that the asymmetry 
is, to some extent, due to individual effort in the 
young fish. 

Among plants kinetogenesis is not of much im- 
portance ; but the Rev. G. Henslow has given an 
ingenious explanation of how all the modifications 
of flowers may, perhaps, be due to the irritation 
caused by the visits of insects.” This hypothesis 
has been adversely criticised by Dr. Wallace? ; 
but in my opinion Mr. Henslow has made out a 
case that requires careful consideration. ‘There 
are, certainly, floral modifications which cannot 
be explained by natural selection, as they are in- 

1 Nature, vol. x1., pp. 619-620. 

2 The Origin of Floral Structures by Insect and other 
Agencies, 1888. 


8 Natural Science, vol. v. (1894), p. 178, and Mr. Hen- 
slow’s reply on p. 261. 


206 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


jurious or useless to the plants ; but these are all 
useful to the insect-visitors, and may have been 
produced by extrinsic selection, as I have already 
explained. Mr. Henslow has not brought forward 
a single case which cannot be explained by one or 
other kind of selection ; and therefore he has not 
shown use-inheritance to be indispensable. 

Also, passing by the apparent inconsistency of 
supposing that irritation has formed the receptacle 
by arresting the growth of the axis, while at the 
same time it has formed the flower by stimulating 
the growth of its foliar appendages, I find that he 
makes no attempt to explain the slow movements 
of the filaments and styles in many dichogamous 
flowers, by which the anthers or the stigmas take 
alternately the same position. He also allows 
that many structures are found in flowers which 
he cannot explain except by calling in the prin- 
ciple of compensation of growth, a principle which, 
as I shall presently show, is a very doubtful one 
and certainly unproved. 

But the strongest evidence against Mr. Henslow 
is afforded by those flowers—such as Mignonette 
(Reseda)—which are constantly visited by insects, 
and yet show no marked result from their visits. 
If the modifications are due to mechanical irrita- 
tion, they ought always to follow upon irritation, 


The New Lamarckism 207 


and to be proportional to it; but this does not 
seem to be the case. Nevertheless, the examples 
brought forward are very interesting, and are not 
to be altogether set aside, although Mr. Henslow 
has evidently exaggerated their importance ; and 
I shall consider them again when discussing the 
subject of heredity; when I will also mention the 
tendrils of Ampelopsis, which is, I think, Mr. 
Henslow’s strongest case. 


DEGENERATE ORGANS 


It is acknowledged that disuse of a muscle leads 
to degeneracy in the tissues, and to their gradual 
dwindling away. Also that a deficiency in the 
nourishment supplied to an organ, especially 
during the period of growth, produces atrophy. 
It is further allowed that degenerate organs’ are 
really the remains of organs which were fully de- 
veloped in former generations. But how disused 
organs became vestiges, or disappeared altogether, 
is a moot point. 

Three explanations have been proposed, viz., 
Natural Selection ; Panmixia, or the cessation of 
selection ; and Disuse-inheritance. Both Professor 
Lloyd Morgan? and Dr. Romanes* have, how- 


1 Often incorrectly called ‘‘rudimentary organs.”’ 
2 Animal Life and Intelligence, 2d edition (1891), 
p- 190, 8 Nature, vol. xli. (1890), p. 437. 


208 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


ever, independently pointed out that the idea of 
panmixia being a cause of degenerate organs is 
founded on a misconception. The cessation of 
natural selection means the cessation of the de- 
struction of the least fit. There would be no 
further progression, but no retrogression. If the 
disused organ is hurtful it will be removed by 
natural selection, but if it is harmless it will re- 
main stationary, so far as panmixia is concerned. 
If an organ is to degenerate, the 7zzus variations, 
as we may call them, must preponderate over the 
plus variations. But this cannot be brought 
about by panmixia, which means free inter- 
crossing between all the varieties that arise; it 
does not originate variations, but only averages 
them. Panmixiacan no more lead organs down- 
wards than it can lead them upwards; and asa 
cause of degeneration it must be eliminated. 
Natural selection acts directly when the organ 
is harmful ; but it is also supposed to act indi- 
rectly, through what has been called the principle 
of compensation of growth; those individuals 
being eliminated which supply most nourishment 
to the useless organ. For example, in the case 
of blind animals living in caves, disuse of the 
eye might cause the pigment cells to degenerate 
and render the eye useless ; and we may suppose 


The New Lamarckism 209 


that useless eyes, being a nuisance, might be re- 
moved by the direct action of natural selection. 
But when we try to explain the disappearance, 
or partial disappearance, of the optic nerve, we 
have to fall back upon either the ‘principle of 
compensation of growth, or on that of disuse-in- 
heritance. Now, the principle of compensation of 
growth supposes that the jA/us variations are 
eliminated, not because they are fAlus variations, 
but because the individuals with mzzus variations 
have, as a consequence, some other and more im- 
portant organ better developed, and so are pre- 
served by natural selection. It is here assumed 
that the hypertrophy of one organ causes atrophy 
in another ; an hypothesis which is not supported 
by sufficient evidence,’ but has simply been taken 
for granted ever since the days of Goethe. 

The fact that pruning stimulates dormant buds 
into growth furnishes no evidence that cutting off 
one part of a flower stimulates the growth of an- 

1 The few instances given by Darwin are all taken from 
domesticated animals or plants, and all are unsatisfactory, 
for they are complicated by the action of artificial selec- 
tion. Dr. Wallace suggests that the absence of the 
thumb in Colodus and in Afeles may be due to compensa- 
tion of growth (Darwinism, 2d edition, p. 138, foot-note) ; 
but in 1866, Messrs. Murie and Mivart had pointed out 


the improbability of this being the cause of the reduced 


forefinger in the Potto (Zrans. Zool. Soc., vol. vii., p. 92). 
14 


210 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


other part of the same flower ; for the conditions 
are different ; and I am not aware of any experi- 
ments having been recorded showing that such is 
the case. Still less can we assume that the stimul- 
ation of the corolla would cause the atrophy of 
one particular stamen without affecting the rest. 
Nor can we apply the case of plants to that of 
animals without danger of falling into serious 
error ; for the whole plan of nutrition differs in 
the vegetable and animal kingdoms. In the 
former it is an involuntary act, and takes place 
whenever the conditions are favourable ; in the 
latter it is voluntary. Animals only feed when 
they are hungry ; and only in exceptional cases 
do they lay up large stores of reserve material in 
their bodies. When any extraordinary growth 
takes place in an animal, such as the renewal of 
a limb or a tail, there ought to be, as a conse- 
quence, the atrophy of some other organ, if the 
principle of compensation of growth be correct ; 
but I know of no such case. Usually every ani- 
mal receives abundant nourishment and to spare. 
In seasons of want all its organs suffer ; and there 
seems to be no reason for thinking that unused 
organs lose more than others. We can hardly 
suppose that to the principle of compensation is 
due the degeneracy of intestinal worms, which 


The New Lamarckism 211 


live bathed in nourishment ; but, if we reject the 
principle in this case, how can we apply it to ex- 
plain the almost entire disappearance of the pelvic 
girdle in whales, or of the coracoid in Mammalia ? 

So that, in those cases where the direct action 
of natural selection fails us, the only explanation 
of degeneration appears to be disuse-inheritance ; 
which assumes that unused organs deteriorate in 
each generation, and that they are transmitted to 
the next in a more deteriorated state than they 
were received. 

The colours of the lower surface of flatfish seem 
to me to offer a testcase. The pale colour cannot 
be of any importance to the animal ; and the pre- 
sence of pigment cells in its skin cannot be a 
disadvantage. We know that these pigment cells 
are there, for they can be brought into promin- 
ence again by the action of light ; but their de- 
generate state is now inherited; and it seems to 
me far more probable that this is due to disuse- 
inheritance than to natural selection. 

The complete loss of the wings’ in the moa may, 
perhaps, be explained by the action of natural 
selection; as they may have been in the way 


1The genera Dinornis and Anomalornis still retain 
the scapulocoracoid, but in Auryapleryx, Metonornis, 
and /achyornis that bone has entirely disappeared. The 
wing is absent in all. 


212 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


when the bird was pushing its way through 
dense scrub; but we cannot refer to natural 
selection the suppression of the shoulder-girdle. 
Neither can we call to our aid the principle of 
compensation of growth ; for the birds lived on 
vegetable food, of which there is a great abund- 
ance in New Zealand; and it was owing to 
the abundance of food that they attained to such 
a great size. Even if we suppose that times of 
scarcity might arise, and the principle of com- 
pensation be called into action, we should expect 
that the deficiency would be made up, not by the 
suppression of small bones like the scapulo- 
coracoid, but by the reduction in thickness of the 
legs ; for the thickness of the legs of the moas 
was of no advantage to them. On the contrary, 
it was distinctly a disadvantage, and would never 
have occurred if the birds had had any enemies 
from whom they tried to escape. Hence we are 
driven to disuse-inheritance for an explanation. 


INHERITANCE OF VARIATIONS 


That congenital variations can be, and usually 
are, transmitted is acknowledged by all. The 
doubt is whether post-natally acquired characters 
can be transmitted ; that is, characters acquired 
through the direct action of external conditions. 


The New Lamarckism rahi 


I have already remarked that the difference be- 
tween direct and indirect action of the environ- 
ment is one of degree only; if, therefore, congenital 
variations are due to the indirect action of the 
environment, it follows that the transmission of 
quickly acquired characters is not impossible, 
although it is very improbable that such should 
take place. 

The reason for this improbability lies in the fact 
that, as Dr. F. Galton has shown, the ‘‘ heredity- 
power ”’ of the actual parents is small when com- 
pared with the accumulated heredity-power of the 
ancestors, stored up in the germ-cells.* So that 
any sudden change, even on the supposition that 
this change has affected the germ-cells, has the 
whole force of ancestral heredity-power arraigned 
against it. | 

The chief difficulty in investigating the problem 
of the transmission of acquired characters is the 
difficulty of determining what ave acquired char- 
acters. Mutilations, no doubt, are acquired char- 
acters ; but, as they are unlike ordinary specific 
characters, they have been, very rightly, objected 
to, as affording no trustworthy evidence. Never- 
theless, the reported occasional inheritance of 
mutilations is always brought forward by the 


1 Proceedings of the Royal Society, vol. xx., p. 394. 


214 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


Neo-Lamarckians as a part of their argument. 
There appear to be several well-authenticated 
cases on record of the transmission of mutilations ; 
but, as they are very exceptional and highly im- 
probable, the evidence for them ought to be closely 
scrutinised. It seems to me that this evidence 
presents a very suspicious feature. If the effects 
of a mutilation were, in some way, passed on to 
the germ-cells—and this must be done before the 
mutilation could be transmitted to the next 
generation—the principle of symmetrical growth 
would come into play, and we ought to find the in- 
herited mutilation equally developed on both sides. 
This, however, is rarely the case; and it shakes 
my confidence in all the recorded observations. 
Professor Cope gets over.the difficulty in a 
characteristic fashion. He assumes it as proved 
that variations in structure are all acquired ; that 
is, are due to ‘‘ use and stimuli’’; and it is then 
easy to show that they have been transmitted 
from one generation to another. He also says, 
‘‘ all characters now congenital have been at 
some period or other acquired;*’’ which may or 
may not be true, according to the meaning we 
attach to the word “‘ acquired.’’ He gives several 
examples of use-inheritance among domesticated 


17. ¢., p. 401. 


The New Lamarckism 215 


animals ; such as the American trotting-horses, | 
and the breeding of small races of dogs ; but they 
are not convincing, owing to the complication 
brought about by artificial selection ; while, in 
the cases of wool differing in different localities, 
and the hoofs of horses differing on hard and soft 
land, there is no evidence that these can be trans- 
mitted to offspring living under different con- 
ditions. It is the same with the numerous 
instances brought forward of acquired characters 
in plants, and with the experiments showing that 
the embryos of the land Salamander (S. a¢ra), 
when placed in water, developed new gills suit- 
able for aquatic respiration. When the characters 
are undoubtedly acquired, there is no evidence 
that they can be transmitted to offspring living 
under different conditions; and when they can 
undoubtedly be transmitted it is always doubtful 
whether the characters are acquired—that is, 
rapidly brought about by external conditions—for 
they are all useful, and may be due to selection.’ 

It is generally allowed that, with man, children 
sometimes have the habits of their parents. This 
may occasionally be due to imitation, but not, I 
think, always. The jerking movement of the 


1See Are the Effects of Use and Disuse Inherited ? 
by W. P. Ball (1890). 


216 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


tails of many birds, and the side movement in that 
of Wagtails, are also probably inherited habits, for 
they do not appear to be of any use. ‘These are 
not specific characters; but if habits and in- 
stincts which have certainly been acquired can 
be transmitted, it is probable that physical char- 
acters can be transmitted also. The best instance 
of this is, I think, the eyes of flatfish, already 
mentioned ; and until some better explanation 
can be found, we must assume that this is a case 
of use-inheritance. In Rhombus and Solea the 
movement has become completely congenital, and 
always takes place in the same way; but in Pleu- 
vonectes the movement is not yet completely fixed, 
and takes place, sometimes on the right side, 
sometimes on the left, probably by the effort of 
the individual. | 

The changing colour of chrysalids also seems to 
be a case of the inherited action of external con- 
ditions ; but it has come about very slowly, under 
the influence of natural selection, and is only an 
example of the indirect action of the environment. 

Returning now to Mr. Henslow’s hypothesis of 
the origin of bilateral flowers, we know that galls 
on leaves are growths due directly to the irritation 
caused by insects. They are never inherited, 
probably because it is only a minority of the 


The New Lamarckism 217 


leaves of a tree which bear galls, and because the 
galls are irregularly placed, occurring on different 
leaves in different years; so that any influence 
they may exert on the germ-cells is counteracted 
by the leaves and parts of leaves which bear no 
galls. But with flowers the case is different. 
Every flower on a plant is visited several times a 
day by insects ; and all the insects act in nearly 
the same manner, and irritate nearly the same 
parts. On the other hand, there are not the 
numerous physiological processes going on in the 
perianth as there are in the leaves ; consequently, 
they would not be so sensitive to irritation. Also 
flowers are formed in the bud, and subsequently 
expand rapidly by interstitial growth ; they last 
a very short time, only a few days ; consequently, 
the reaction of the protoplasm, if it takes place at 
all, must take place quickly, and before the 
perianth has finished growing. If, therefore, the 
fact that galls are not inherited does not imply 
that hypertrophy in flowers cannot be inherited, 
so also the fact that insects produce hypertrophy 
in leaves does not prove that they do so in flowers. 
The subject seems to be too complicated to admit 
of decisive evidence one way or the other. 

I think we have a better case of use-inheritance 
in the following: The small, coriaceous, imbri- 


218 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


cate leaves, found in many Alpine plants in New 
Zealand, appear to be a truly acquired character, 
brought about quickly; forin Olearia nummulart- 
folia, variety cymbzfolia, the leaves on new shoots 
revert to the ordinary form if the plant is removed 
to the low land ; thus showing that the peculiar- 
shaped leaf is an acquired character and is not in- 
herited. The Alpine Veronica lycopodioides has 
much the same shaped leaf as the Alpine variety 
of Olearia » and we have, therefore, every reason 
to suppose that it also is an acquired character. 
But when the Alpine Vevonica is grown at a low 
level the leaves do not change; and we must, 
therefore, assume that an acquired character has 
here become congenital. 

Mr. Henslow gives another good example. He 
says, ‘‘ These differences are well seen in the 
tendrils of Ampelopsis hederacea, as compared with 
those of A. veztchiz. In the former there are no 
traces of the adhesive ‘ pads’ at the terminations 
of the slender hooked tips of the branching ten- 
drils, until contact with the surface of a wall has 
occurred. On the latter species, however, the 
pads are in course of development before any con- 
tact has taken place ; just as the aérial roots of 
Ivy begin to appear before contact. It is, there- 
fore, reasonable to conclude that the effect of con- 


The New Lamarckism 21g 


tact has become more or less hereditary in the 
latter Japanese species, though not in the Ameri- 
Calm. 


CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS 


We have seen that use-inheritance, or kineto- 
genesis, cannot originate, it can only develop, 
already existing organs; so that, as an explana- 
tion of the origin of species, it goes no deeper 
than natural selection. But use-inheritance can, 
at best, only explain certain structures, while 
others remain unexplained ; and there is evidence 
that in many cases it is ineffective. Also, nearly 
all the structures can be explained by indefinite 
variation and natural selection ; so that, in most 
cases, use-inheritance is unnecessary. The only 
cases I can find in which indefinite variation 
seems to fail are those of the eye in flatfish, and 
the tendrils of Amfelopsis ; and until some other 
explanation of these is forthcoming, we must con- 
sider use-inheritance as a true cause, but one the 
importance of which has been greatly exagger- 
ated by Lamarckians. We can only admit its 
influence where the evidence appears to be 
conclusive. — 

Panmixia cannot cause degeneracy ; and the 

1 The Origin of Floral Structures, p. 156. 


220 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


principle of compensation of growth is an un- 
proved hypothesis of a very doubtful character ; 
consequently, disuse-inheritance seems to be ne- 
cessary to explain many vestigial organs; but 
there is no evidence to show that changes in form 
can be thus produced. Degenerate organs get 
smaller, but do not change their form ; and we 
have positive evidence that great activity does not 
necessarily produce change in shape. 

Physiogenesis is certainly a true cause of varia- 
tion ; but these variations are not transmitted to 
other generations, unless the same variation has 
been impressed over and over again on many suc- 
cessive generations. When this is the case, some 
kind of impulse seems to be transmitted to the 
germ-cells ; but the action is slow. Characters 
may be suddenly acquired, but they cannot be 
suddenly transmitted. The origin of variations, 
however, is not explained by saying that they are 
due to the action of the environment. We can 
never understand the origin of variations until we 
can explain the laws of growth and inheritance ; 
neither of which is touched by Lamarckism any 
more than by Darwinism. 

It seems probable that the energy of inheritance 
must have been slight in the first organisms, and 
have increased with repetition ; for this is the 


The New Lamarckism 221 


teaching of a large number of experiments and 
observations on new varieties. But we learn 
from paleontology that variation was slow at 
first, and that it became more rapid as the earth 
grew older ; so that the causes which induced it 
must have increased in intensity. This may be 
chiefly due to the increasing complexity of the 
germ-cells ; but to account for this increase we 
must call in the continued action of the environ- 
ment on the individual to supply the necessary 
energy. 

The most reasonable hypothesis appears to be 
that the physico-chemical forces affect, in time, 
the germ-cells ; and that the changes thus pro- 
duced become congenital variations, capable of 
being transmitted to future generations. These 
slowly acquired variations compete in the germ- 
cells with variations acquired by the ancestors of 
living individuals, which are the results of ex- 
ternal conditions on previous generations, and 
known as constitutional causes, or specific con- 
stitution ; and this is at the present time of far 
greater importance in the production of variations 
than external conditions. Thus numerous com- 
plications arise in the germ-cells ; and the usual 
result is what we call indefinite variation. ‘These 
indefinite variations may become definite through 


222 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


repetition ; and are controlled in their develop- 
ment by the principle of selection, sometimes 
aided by use-inheritance. 

These were the views held by Darwin, who 
never thought that natural selection was the sole 
explanation of adaptations, and always recognised 
the influence of external conditions in the pro- 
duction of varieties. But they are very different 
from the teachings of the Neo-Lamarckians, who 
hold that use-inheritance is the chief factor in 
evolution. ‘They also differ from the views of Dr. 
Wallace and Professor Weismann, who will not 
allow that somatogenesis is a true cause at all; 
as well as from those of Professor Nageli, who 
thinks that varieties arise from internal strains 
during growth in definite directions “‘ towards 
greater perfection, that is, towards greater com- 
plexity,’’ by what he calls the 


‘ 


‘principle of im- 
provement.”’ 

There still remains the difficulty of explaining 
how great changes took place in the first pelagic 
organisms, notwithstanding the uniformity of the 
conditions under which they existed. These 
organisms may have been numerous from the 
first, but they cannot have been very dissimilar. 
No doubt they were all endowed with the powers 
of assimilation, contractility, and irritability, but 


The New Lamarckism pie es 


not with the power of secreting different solid 
substances—such as silica, carbonate of lime, 
cellulose, etc.—out of their food. This power 
came later, and was something quite new. Differ- 
ent chemical actions began in different organisms, 
all of which were living in the ocean. The 
floating plants, as well as the Radiolarians and 
Foraminifera, lived under apparently identical 
conditions, while the sponges were subject to 
greater pressure on the bottom of the sea. 

It is difficulties such as these which have led 
some biologists to think that the original proto- 
plasm not only had the property of being altered 
by the action of external stimuli, but that it had 
in addition “‘ inherent in it, the capability of de- 
velopment, that is, the capability of variation, and 
the ability to retain the results of this variability 
as new qualifications.’’?* But the facts of palz- 
ontology are inconsistent with this view; for they 
show us that very many organisms have gone on 
perpetuating their forms for period after period in 
geological history, without showing any change. 
This could not have been the case if protoplasm 
contained an internal force urging it to vary; and 
the hypothesis just mentioned must mean that, or 


1 Text-Book of Botany, by Strasburger, Schimper, Noll 
and Schenck, English Translation by Porter (1898), p. 4. 


224 Darwinism and Lamarckism 


else it is merely a statement of the fact that organ- 
isms are capable of varying. 

As a possible way out of the difficulty I would 
suggest that the first variations were due to differ- 
ent organisms assimilating different substances 
with their food. It is possible, even probable, 
that the primzeval ocean was not so uniform in 
composition as it is now. Many chemical re- 
actions would be going on in the crust of the 
earth, and different gases might be discharged in 
great quantities in different places; and it is 
possible that imbibition of these—some by one set 
of organisms, some by another set-—may have 
given rise to the different forms of secretion which 
followed. 

However this may be, we know of nothing 
capable of initiating organic changes, except the 
action of external forces on protoplasm; while 
the modus operandi remains a mystery. 


INDEX OF PERSONAL NAMES 


*,* This Index is only intended to facilitate reference to the 
authors quoted. The names of Darwin and Lamarck are omitted, 
since to give all the references to them in a serviceable form would 


involve a recapitulation of the Lectures. 


The Table of Contents at 


the beginning sufficiently indicates the subject-matter. 


Baer, C. E. von, 21 

Bagehot, W., 16, 160, 163 

Baker, Sir Samuel, 191 

Ball, W. P., 190, 215 

Buckley Cele, 2055109, 172 

Bumpus, Prof. H. C., 112 

Carlyle, T., 21, 156 

Chambers, R., 41 

Clifford, Prof. W. K., 66 

COMte eA, vole 71 kgs 

Cope; Prof. E.:D., 177, 178, 
180, 182, I9I, 193, 194, 
197, 198, 201, 214 

Cunningham, Prof. J. T., 
194 

Cuvier, .GoL7,'5, 39 

Dall, W. H., 196 

Darwin, Erasmus, 32 

Fleming, Dr. J., 33 

Freeman, E. A., 169 

Froude, J. A., 170 

Galton, F., 16, 213 

Goethe, J. W. von, 209 

Greg, W. R., 16 

Gulick, Rev. J., III 

Henfrey, A., 59 

Henry, R., 130, 131 


Henslow, Rev. G., 15, 132, 
187, 205, 206, 216, 218 

Hume, D., 163 

Hyatt, Prof. A., 193 

Jackson, Dr. R. T., 194 

Jenkin, Fleeming, 3 

Jevons, Prof. W. S., 164, 
172, 173 

Kant, Immanuel, 170 

Kelvin, Lord, 56 

Kidd, Benj., 16, 22 

Kirby, W. F., 113 

Laplace, P. S., 56 

Lewes, G. H., 18, 147 

Lewis, Sir H. G. C., 158 

Linnzeus, Carl, 31, 59, 169 

Lloyd, Bishop William, 41 

Lyell, Sir C.; 16 

Macaulay, Lord, 166 

Mackie, S. P., 44 


Malthus, Rev. T. R., 54, 
106, 129 

Marsh, Prof. O. C., 201 

Mill JnS.y)271 


Mivart, Prof. St. G., 209 
Morgan, Prof. Lloyd, 15, 
87, 207 


225 


226 


Nageli, Prof. C., 222 

Potts, T. H., 120 

Poulton, Prof. E. B., 6 

Ramsay, Sir A., 44 

Romanes, Dr. G. J., 15, 66, 
83, 108, 122, 124, 127, 207 

Roux, Dr., 147 

Sagnitz, Count Berg, I19 

Salisbury, Marquis of, 5, 6 

Schenck, A., 223 

Semper, Prof. K., 99, 185 

Spencer, Herbert, 16, 65, 


175, 177 ’ 
Stephen, Leslie, 164 


Index 


Thomson, Sir W., 56 
Turgot, A. R. J., 162 
Ussher, Archbishop James, 


4I 
Vico, G. B., 165 
Wagner, Moritz, 82, 99, 108, 
III 
Wallace, Dr. A. R., 16, 17, 
99, 97; TOO, 105, 124, 129, 
130, 187, 204, 205, 209, 222 
Weismann, Prof. A., III, 
180, 181, 187, 194, 195, 222 
Wollaston, T. V., 34 
Woodward, S. P., 35 





The Science Series 


Edited by Professor J. McKrren CaTTELL, Columbia Uni- 
versity, with the codperation of FRANK EvERS BEDDARD, 
F.R.S., in Great Britain. 

Each volume of the series will treat some department of 
science with reference to the most recent advances, and will 
be contributed by an author of acknowledged authority. 
Every effort will be made to maintain the standard set by the 
first volumes, until the series shall represent the more im- 
portant aspects of contemporary science. The advance of 
science has been so rapid, and its place in modern life has 
become so dominant, that it is needful to revise continually 
the statement of its results, and to put these in a form that is 
intelligible and attractive. The man of science can himself 
be a specialist in one department only, yet it is necessary for 
him to keep abreast of scientific progress in many directions, 
The results of modern science are of use in nearly every pro- 
fession and calling, and are an essential part of modern 
education and culture. A series of scientific books, such as 
has been planned, should be assured of a wide circulation, 
and should contribute greatly to the advance and diffusion of 
scientific knowledge. 

The volumes will be in octavo form, and will be fully illus- 
trated in so far as the subject-matter calls for illustrations. 


G. P. PUTNAM’S SONS, New York & LonpDoN 


THE SCIENCE SERIES 


(Volumes ready, in press, and in preparation.) 


The Study of Man. By Professor A. C. HADpoN, M.A., D.Sc., Royal 
College of Science, Dublin. Illustrated. 8°, $2.00 

The Groundwork of Science. A Study of Epistemology. By St: 
GEORGE MivarT, F.R.S. 8°, $1.75 


Rivers of North America. A Reading Lesson for Students of Geography 
and Geology. By IsrRAEL C, RussELL, LL.D., Professor of Geology 
in the University of Michigan. Illustrated. 8°, $2.00 


Earth Sculpture. By Professor JAMES GEIKIE, F.R.S., University of 
Edinburgh. Illustrated. 8°, $2.00 

Volcanoes. By T. G. Bonnry, F.R.S., University College, London. 
Illustrated. 8°, $2.00 


Bacteria. By G. NEwmMAN, M.D., F.R.S., Demonstrator of Bacteriology 
in King’s College, London. Illustrated, 8°. 


The Stars. By Professor Simon NEwcoms, U.S.N., Nautical Almanac 
Office, and Johns Hopkins University. 


Meteors and Comets. By Professor C. A. YOUNG, Princeton University. 


The Measurement of the Earth. By Professor T. C. MENDENHALL, 
Worcester Polytechnic Institute, formerly Superintendent of the U. S. 
Coast and Geodetic Survey. 


Earthquakes. By Major C. E. Dutton, U.S.A. 


Physiography; The Forms of the Land. As Professor W. M. DaAvls, 
Harvard University. 


The History of Science. By C. S. PEIRCE. 


General Ethnography. By Professor DANIEL G. BRINTON, University 
of Pennsylvania. 


Recent Theories of Evolution. By J. MARK BALDWIN, Princeton 
University. 


Whales. By F. E. BEDDARD, F.R.S., Zodlogical Society, London. 


The Reproduction of Living Beings. By Professor MARcus HARTOG, 
Queen’s College, Cork. 


Man and the Higher Apes. By Dr. A. Keiru, F.R.C.S. 
Heredity. By J. ARTHUR THOMPSON, School of Medicine, Edinburgh. 


Life Areas of North America: A Study in the Distribution of 
Animals and Plants. By Dr. C. HArT MERRIAM, Chief of the Bio- 
logical Survey, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 


Age, Growth, Sex, and Death. By Professor CHARLES S. MINOT, 
Harvard Medical School. 


Bacteria. Dr. J. H. GLADSTONE. 

History of Botany. Professor A. H. GREEN, 

Planetary Motion. G. W. HILL. 

Infection and Immunity. Gro, M. STERNBERG, Surgeon-General U.S.A. 


red td 


AG 


aH, me 1 We atten » BD ; 
: ents te ss 


a 


hail - 





DATE DUE 





GAYLORD 


nat ? 


PRINTEDINU.S.A. 


es Oe Pre 
LE PARR CPP AR BT 
Mea tately, 


ab. A 
‘it 


bg wy 


/® + al, 


Kia oie ya 









































































caniey 


Veils 





4 
Ha 























